Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I call up my amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. AKAKA. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment so pilots are not unfairly penalized for having to retire early by FAA. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, my amendment corrects a wrong. Pilots have their promised pensions significantly reduced when the PBGC takes it over. The FAA mandates that the commercial pilots retire at 60. We must take the steps necessary to ensure that the PBGC will have resources to be able to help pilots whose retirement security has been threatened due to the pension takeover and prevented from continuing their careers. This penalty combined with the FAA mandate produce an overly harsh result that hurts pilots and their families when they lose their pension plans. My legislation only affects pilots. Pilot plans have been some of the largest pension plan terminations in history. Again, the FAA mandates that they retire at 60 and the PBGC's early retirement penalty occurs because they cannot continue to fly past age 60 commercially. My amendment will bring about much needed relief for United Airlines, US Airways, Aloha Airlines, TWA, Eastern Airlines, and Braniff pilots. It is important to note that pilots are the only private sector employees required to retire at the age of 60. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Specter, Feinstein, Salazar, and Inouye, for working with me on this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am extremely pleased that the Senate will pass legislation that will authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for veterans' compensation for next year. The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2005 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2005, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled adult children, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. This increase will be the same percentage as the increase provided to Social Security recipients. The increase this year is one of the largest in recent memory--4.1 percent. In my opinion, this increase could not have come at a more crucial time. The COLA is enormously important to veterans and their families. It is critical that veterans' disability compensation rates keep pace with the increasing cost-of- living. Without it, these people would be unable to afford the simple necessities of life. I note, it is well documented that home heating fuel costs will skyrocket this winter. The COLA increase goes a long way to ensuring no veterans are left out in the cold. Mr. President, in closing, I thank all Senators that voted to support this Nation's veterans. The bill (S. 1234), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent a fellow in my office, William Ferraro, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the pension bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate one of the most important books in the history of mankind: the Bible. As the Senate cochairman of the 2005 National Bible Week, it is my honor to join the National Bible Association and our Nation's citizens in celebrating the Good Book and its teachings. During the week of November 20 to 27, I encourage everyone to participate in this fine tradition by reading and reflecting on the important lessons of the Bible. As a child growing up in Hawaii, my parents introduced me to the Bible and it has always played an important role in my life. I turn to it on a regular basis in search of inspiration, guidance and strength. The Bible is a resource of profound but fundamental truths that retain relevance throughout the ages. They are the lessons that serve as the building blocks of good citizens, good families, good communities and good government. One of my favorite scriptures in the Bible teaches us that God loved us so that He sent us His only begotten Son so that we might live through Him. Because God so loved us, we ought also to love one another and His love will be perfected in us. In this time of international strife, natural disaster, and political turmoil, this basic instinct of caring for our fellow man, of love for our neighbor, is a good place to begin. The Holy Bible is one of man's greatest legacies. I congratulate and commend the National Bible Association for its efforts to promote the Good Book and to encourage better understanding of its universal truths among people of all faiths. Aloha ke Akua. God is love.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, for the time. Tomorrow is Veterans Day. I pause this morning and join my fellow Americans in paying homage to those who served in this Nation's Armed Forces. Observance of this day is a wonderful tradition that allows all Americans to reflect upon the sacrifices made by our veterans in protecting our freedoms and liberties. This Veterans Day is especially poignant during this time of conflict. Our current battles abroad are a constant reminder of the ordeals our soldiers of this war and past wars endured on behalf of this great Nation. I commend the many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on Active Duty, and the National Guard and the Reserves, and their families for their service to our country. Our support of our service members must be steadfast and strong. Veterans Day has a long and important history. In 1911--at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month--an armistice was signed between the Allied nations and Germany, effectively ending World War I, then hoped to be ``the war to end all wars''. In November of 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 the first commemoration of Armistice Day. This great day was initially celebrated in honor of those veterans who fought in World War I. It was not until 1954 that Congress, at the urging of veterans service organizations, renamed Armistice Day as Veterans Day to extend the commemoration to all those who have so honorably served this Nation. Although we pause today to commemorate the service of those who served on behalf of this grateful Nation, we must make certain that this day has meaning and is not merely set aside for fanfare and speeches. Indeed, we must make certain that our veterans have our commitment and support every day and not just Veterans Day. Too often our veterans' priorities are not our own. As we saw earlier this year, VA had a tremendous funding shortfall. It took some too long to acknowledge what so many of us had known for some time--that VA health care was not being funded at an adequate level--a level commensurate with the sacrifice that our veterans made on the beaches of Normandy, the harbors of Hawaii, the jungles of Vietnam, and the deserts of the Middle East. I am pleased that VA has announced that it is suspending its planned review of 72,000 post traumatic stress disorder claims. This is surely great news for all veterans because many times VA compensation is the sole source of income for a veteran and his family. We must put into practice daily the sentiment that Abraham Lincoln expressed when he said during his second inaugural address that we should--and I quote the President-- care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan. Our 25 million living veterans are the backbone of this Nation. Today, I want to personally express my gratitude to all veterans of our Armed Forces and thank them for their service. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to say a few words of a dear friend, Henry Giugni, who passed away this morning. Henry enjoyed an illustrious career both on and off Capitol Hill. He began his career in Washington as Senator Inouye's Chief of Staff and continued until he was appointed Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate. In both positions, he enjoyed the confidence and respect of all and he served them well. He was a well-recognized presence on the Hill, particularly in the Senate. After leaving the Hill, Henry joined one of the largest consulting firms in Washington where he was serving his clients effectively. I will remember Henry as one of the first friends who welcomed me and my family to Washington when I was elected to Congress nearly 30 years ago. His kindness continued over many years and we knew him to be a loving husband and father. Millie and I always appreciated his visits whether for business or a social call. It was only a few weeks ago that Millie and I chatted with him and we were extremely saddened to hear of his passing. Millie and I express our warmest aloha to his wife Lani and their family. Henry was our dear and cherished friend and we will miss him greatly. God bless Henry and his family. May he rest in peace.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate our National Championship soccer team from Hawaii, the Honolulu Bulls Soccer Club ('88 Girls) team which won the U17-Girls U.S. Club National Cup in Stony Brook, NY, on August 8, 2005. In an exciting final match, the Bulls defeated the Boston Renegades, 1-0 at the Stony Brook Soccer Complex. The Bulls advanced to the national championship tournament by winning a regional tournament in Las Vegas earlier this year. At the national tournament, the Bulls earned a spot in the championship game by going undefeated in pool play, beating teams from Georgia and Pennsylvania and tying with a team from California. In the final match, the Bulls' precision game denied the opposing Boston team any serious scoring opportunities. Katrina Chong's goal in the first half off an assist by Alana Wall would be the game's only score. The Honolulu Bulls Soccer Club ('88 Girls) team members are: Lucy Caires, CiAnna Chun-Ming, Kelsi Chan, Katrina Chong, Devin Council, Caycie Gusman, Allison Haines, Jaymie Honold, Ashley Kanda, Lauren Kanda, Sophia Merrifield, Marisa Schoen, Carly Wachi, Alana Wall, Lindsey Watanabe, Jordan Weeks, Jenna Wong, Kiani Wong, and Marie Yempuku. The team is coached by Phil Neddo, Craig Nosse, and Robin McCullough. I congratulate the Honolulu Bulls Soccer Club ('88 Girls) on their thrilling run to the top of their sport, and I wish all of them the best in their future endeavors, in life and on the playing field. And I extend the same congratulations to all players and coaches who participated in this year's U.S. Club Soccer National Cup IV Finals on a job well done.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I originally filed an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds within this appropriations bill for the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program is an acknowledgment from the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to tax preparers stating whether the taxpayer's refund will be paid or intercepted for Government debts. I continue to be outraged that the IRS provides the service of the Debt Indicator program to predatory refund anticipation loan, RAL, originators while cutting essential services to low-income taxpayers. The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, is a refundable Federal income tax credit that is of great benefit to low-income working individuals and families. Many taxpayers who earn the EITC receive their tax refunds through predatory RALs. The excessive interest rates and fees charged on RALs are not justified because of the short duration of these loans and the minimal risk of repayment that they present. The IRS Debt Indicator program further reduces risk by assuring RAL lenders that the taxpayer's refund be issued and thus the loan will be repaid. The EITC was diminished by an estimated $1.75 billion in 1999. I am concerned about the aggressive marketing of RALs in low-income neighborhoods where EITC recipients often live. These loans take money away from the day-to-day needs of lower-income families. RALs carry little risk because the Debt Indicator program informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal, State taxes, child support, student loans, or other government obligations. This service assists the tax preparer in ascertaining applicant ability to obtain their full refund. In 1995, the use of the debt indicator was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. This suspension caused RAL participation to decline. RAL prices were expected go down as a result of the reinstatement of the debt indicator in 1999. However, this has not occurred. The debt indicator should once again be stopped. The IRS should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families. H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni remarked, upon the reinstatement of the debt indicator, that it ``is good news for many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund through RALs. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower fees for this service.'' This has not happened. According to the National Consumer Law Center's report entitled, ``Corporate Welfare for the RAL Industry: The Debt Indicator, IRS Subsidy, and Tax Fraud,'' prices for RALs dipped in 2000, but since then have gone up beyond pre- debt indicator levels. The report also points out that the ``main effect of the debt indicator appears to be, not in lowering RAL fees, but in higher RAL profits.'' The NCLC report also indicates that the reinstatement of the debt indicator ``generates more fraud related to RALs, which the IRS must spend enforcement dollars to address.'' The debt indicator serves only to facilitate the exploitation of taxpayers. The reinstatement of the debt indicator has not helped consumers to access cheaper RALs nor has it reduced RAL related fraud. If the debt indicator is removed, then the loans become riskier and the tax preparers may not aggressively market them among EITC filers. The IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefits away from low-income families. RALs are extremely short term loans that unnecessarily diminish the EITC. There are alternatives to speeding up refunds such as filing electronically or having the refund directly deposited into a bank or credit union account. Using these methods, taxpayers can receive their returns in about 7 to 10 days without paying the high fees associated with RALs. Instead of offering my amendment to prevent the use of funds for the DI, I chose to modify my amendment to have the Internal Revenue Service, along with the National Taxpayer Advocate, study the use of the debt indicator, the debt collection offset practice, and recommendations that could reduce the amount of time required to deliver tax refunds. In addition, the report shall study whether the debt indicator facilitates the use of RALs, evaluate alternatives to RALs, and examine the feasibility of debit cards being used to distribute refunds. I look forward to reviewing the results of the study. I welcome the opportunity to work with the Internal Revenue Service, the National Taxpayer Advocate, and my colleagues to reduce the use of RALs and to expand access to alternative methods of obtaining timely tax refunds. I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Murray for working with me to incorporate this language into the legislation and hope it will be maintained in the conference report through conference negotiations with the other body. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced report in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems. About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. A study by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America revealed that 5 of 13 credit card issuers increased the interest rates they offered to consumers in credit counseling between 1999 and 2003. American Express and Wells Fargo completely waive all interest for consumers in credit counseling. However, the majority of credit card issuers charge interest rates above 9 percent for account holders that enter into credit counseling, with several charging more than 15 percent. My bill would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that credit counseling is truly effective and a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Credit card issuers undermine the good intentions of those consumers. They have sharply curtailed the concessions they offer to consumers in credit counseling, contributing to increased bankruptcy filings. According to a survey by VISA USA, 33 percent of consumers who failed to complete a debt management plan in credit counseling said they would have stayed on the plan if creditors had lowered interest rates or waived fees. Credit card companies have an obligation to ensure that effective alternatives are readily available to the consumers they aggressively pursue. We must make sure that credit counseling is an effective tool to help consumers avoid bankruptcy. In order to do this, credit card issuers should waive the amount owed in interest and fees for consumers who enter a consolidated payment plan. Successful completion of a debt management plan benefits both creditors and consumers. Mr. President, for many consumers, paying off their debt is not easy. My bill will help people who are struggling to repay their obligations. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their creditors, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act of 2005. Currently, federal law authorizes insured depository institutions to export interest rates, as provided under the laws of the state where the bank or credit union is located, to out-of- state borrowers. My bill would effectively eliminate the ability of financial institutions to do this by prohibiting federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. What constitutes a payday loan? These are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Today, industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. I am appalled that the payday lending industry is portrayed as a legitimate business. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders are concentrated around military bases, such as the Navy bases in Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Fort Lewis in Washington State, and the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton in California. The Department of Defense confirms the Center's report by listing payday lending as one of the top 10 priority issues facing military families, according to Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. To the predatory lenders, our military personnel's government paychecks represent a reliable source of fees. Also, payday lenders can be relatively confident that borrowers will continue to pay, because military personnel face harsh consequences, such as court martial or dishonorable discharge, for not repaying their debts. I am pleased that in my home state a local credit union, Windward Community Federal Credit Union, Kailua, Hawaii, has developed an affordable, alternative product to offer the many Marines who live in its service area. Earlier this year I introduced another bill to encourage replication of such practices. S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, would authorize demonstration project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans to consumers that would provide alternatives to more costly, predatory payday loans so that more people could have access to payday loan alternatives. Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year with two thirds having five or more payday loans annually and half of these borrowers having 12 or more payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans a staggering five times or more. The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. Congress has failed to act to prevent the exploitation of working families that are short on cash due to unexpected medical expenses or other needs. We must act to protect consumers from these unscrupulous lenders. I remain committed to restricting all forms of predatory lending, including payday loans, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I opposed the bankruptcy reform bill because it was an outdated bill that failed to include adequate consumer protections. We saw a record number of consumer bankruptcy filing prior to the October 17 implementation deadline for the harsh new bankruptcy. Not enough was included in the legislation to protect consumers from predatory lenders or to make credit counseling a viable alternative to bankruptcy or to better inform over extended consumers about the true costs of their debts. I was disappointed that the Senate failed to effectively address these issues in a meaningful way, and instead, passed an outdated bill that forces working families into more costly and difficult bankruptcy proceedings. I am committed to making improvements in this flawed law. Today, I am introducing two bills that address flaws in the bankruptcy reform law. The first bill is the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act. This bill would prevent federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with full payment due in 2 weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class, including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders exploit people in financial need and profit enormously from these loans. We must act to protect vulnerable consumers from these predatory lenders. In addition, I previously introduced S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act. This bill would authorize award demonstration project grants for eligible entities to provide consumers with low-cost, small loan alternatives to more costly and predatory payday loans. Loan alternatives that meet the needs of consumers and are at a fair price must be developed. Today, I am also introducing the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems. About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Examples of concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. The Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that consumers are given a fair chance at reducing their debt burden. I also offered the text of the amendment of my bill, S. 393, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act, as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. My amendment, intended to provide consumers with adequate, timely, and meaningful disclosures, was unfortunately defeated. As the bankruptcy reform law makes it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, we have a responsibility to provide meaningful additional information so that consumers can make better informed debt management decisions. The bankruptcy reform law includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide a generic warning about the consequences of only making the minimum payment. This requirement fails to provide consumers the detailed information that my amendment would have provided, which means detailed, personalized information necessary for them to make better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. My amendment would have required companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it would take to repay their entire balance, and the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer makes only the minimum payment. My legislation would also have required consumers to be provided with the amount they would need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance in 36 months. Finally, my legislation would have required that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In response to criticisms that my amendment was not feasible, I, along with Senator Sarbanes, requested that the Government Accountability Office study the issue. I am hopeful the report will provide helpful information as we must continue to improve meaningful and understandable disclosures that will help Americans better manage their credit card debts. I want to take a moment to thank Senator Sarbanes, and his Banking Committee staff, for working with me on this and many other financial literacy related issues. In addition, I also want to thank Senator Leahy and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for all of their efforts to try and improve the flawed bankruptcy legislation. I fear that the bankruptcy reform law will significantly harm families who have suffered financially due to illnesses, the loss of a job, or the death of a loved one. I remain committed to working with all of my colleagues to better protect and inform consumers and to hold the credit card industry accountable for its aggressive marketing of credit to our debt burdened society.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act of 2005. Currently, federal law authorizes insured depository institutions to export interest rates, as provided under the laws of the state where the bank or credit union is located, to out-of- state borrowers. My bill would effectively eliminate the ability of financial institutions to do this by prohibiting federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. What constitutes a payday loan? These are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Today, industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. I am appalled that the payday lending industry is portrayed as a legitimate business. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders are concentrated around military bases, such as the Navy bases in Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Fort Lewis in Washington State, and the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton in California. The Department of Defense confirms the Center's report by listing payday lending as one of the top 10 priority issues facing military families, according to Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. To the predatory lenders, our military personnel's government paychecks represent a reliable source of fees. Also, payday lenders can be relatively confident that borrowers will continue to pay, because military personnel face harsh consequences, such as court martial or dishonorable discharge, for not repaying their debts. I am pleased that in my home state a local credit union, Windward Community Federal Credit Union, Kailua, Hawaii, has developed an affordable, alternative product to offer the many Marines who live in its service area. Earlier this year I introduced another bill to encourage replication of such practices. S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, would authorize demonstration project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans to consumers that would provide alternatives to more costly, predatory payday loans so that more people could have access to payday loan alternatives. Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year with two thirds having five or more payday loans annually and half of these borrowers having 12 or more payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans a staggering five times or more. The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. Congress has failed to act to prevent the exploitation of working families that are short on cash due to unexpected medical expenses or other needs. We must act to protect consumers from these unscrupulous lenders. I remain committed to restricting all forms of predatory lending, including payday loans, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I opposed the bankruptcy reform bill because it was an outdated bill that failed to include adequate consumer protections. We saw a record number of consumer bankruptcy filing prior to the October 17 implementation deadline for the harsh new bankruptcy. Not enough was included in the legislation to protect consumers from predatory lenders or to make credit counseling a viable alternative to bankruptcy or to better inform over extended consumers about the true costs of their debts. I was disappointed that the Senate failed to effectively address these issues in a meaningful way, and instead, passed an outdated bill that forces working families into more costly and difficult bankruptcy proceedings. I am committed to making improvements in this flawed law. Today, I am introducing two bills that address flaws in the bankruptcy reform law. The first bill is the Predatory Payday Loan Prohibition Act. This bill would prevent federally-insured financial institutions from originating predatory payday loans. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with full payment due in 2 weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Industry analysts conservatively estimate that more than 15,000 payday advance locations across America extend about $25 billion in short-term credit to millions of households experiencing cash-flow shortfalls. Too many of its customers are low-income, working families. More and more customers are the financially stretched middle class, including people who have maxed out their credit cards, people perhaps who have lost a job, or people with no savings to fall back on during a situation that causes a cash-flow shortfall, such as a medical emergency. Payday lending is also rampant in the military. One in five servicemembers have used payday lenders in the last year, according to the report, ``Payday Lenders Target the Military,'' by the Center for Responsible Lending. Payday lenders exploit people in financial need and profit enormously from these loans. We must act to protect vulnerable consumers from these predatory lenders. In addition, I previously introduced S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act. This bill would authorize award demonstration project grants for eligible entities to provide consumers with low-cost, small loan alternatives to more costly and predatory payday loans. Loan alternatives that meet the needs of consumers and are at a fair price must be developed. Today, I am also introducing the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems. About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Examples of concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. The Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that consumers are given a fair chance at reducing their debt burden. I also offered the text of the amendment of my bill, S. 393, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act, as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. My amendment, intended to provide consumers with adequate, timely, and meaningful disclosures, was unfortunately defeated. As the bankruptcy reform law makes it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, we have a responsibility to provide meaningful additional information so that consumers can make better informed debt management decisions. The bankruptcy reform law includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide a generic warning about the consequences of only making the minimum payment. This requirement fails to provide consumers the detailed information that my amendment would have provided, which means detailed, personalized information necessary for them to make better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. My amendment would have required companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it would take to repay their entire balance, and the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer makes only the minimum payment. My legislation would also have required consumers to be provided with the amount they would need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance in 36 months. Finally, my legislation would have required that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In response to criticisms that my amendment was not feasible, I, along with Senator Sarbanes, requested that the Government Accountability Office study the issue. I am hopeful the report will provide helpful information as we must continue to improve meaningful and understandable disclosures that will help Americans better manage their credit card debts. I want to take a moment to thank Senator Sarbanes, and his Banking Committee staff, for working with me on this and many other financial literacy related issues. In addition, I also want to thank Senator Leahy and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for all of their efforts to try and improve the flawed bankruptcy legislation. I fear that the bankruptcy reform law will significantly harm families who have suffered financially due to illnesses, the loss of a job, or the death of a loved one. I remain committed to working with all of my colleagues to better protect and inform consumers and to hold the credit card industry accountable for its aggressive marketing of credit to our debt burdened society.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Bankruptcy Prevention Credit Counseling Act. The new bankruptcy reform law does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems. About one in three consumers in credit counseling enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors may agree to concessions so that consumers pay off as much of their outstanding debt as possible. Concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. Unfortunately, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. A study by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America revealed that 5 of 13 credit card issuers increased the interest rates they offered to consumers in credit counseling between 1999 and 2003. American Express and Wells Fargo completely waive all interest for consumers in credit counseling. However, the majority of credit card issuers charge interest rates above 9 percent for account holders that enter into credit counseling, with several charging more than 15 percent. My bill would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in bankruptcy, if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since the new bankruptcy law requires that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that credit counseling is truly effective and a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Credit card issuers undermine the good intentions of those consumers. They have sharply curtailed the concessions they offer to consumers in credit counseling, contributing to increased bankruptcy filings. According to a survey by VISA USA, 33 percent of consumers who failed to complete a debt management plan in credit counseling said they would have stayed on the plan if creditors had lowered interest rates or waived fees. Credit card companies have an obligation to ensure that effective alternatives are readily available to the consumers they aggressively pursue. We must make sure that credit counseling is an effective tool to help consumers avoid bankruptcy. In order to do this, credit card issuers should waive the amount owed in interest and fees for consumers who enter a consolidated payment plan. Successful completion of a debt management plan benefits both creditors and consumers. Mr. President, for many consumers, paying off their debt is not easy. My bill will help people who are struggling to repay their obligations. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their creditors, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to work with me and all those who support the belief that only through strong leadership will government be able to respond to the needs of its citizens. This week, I participated in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on dealing with the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I want to share a statement made by the Honorable Dan Coody, Mayor of Fayetteville, AR, who said: I've always believed that any program or process will succeed or fail based on the leadership in that program. And I think that from the very top to the very bottom--speaking at the micro level--there needs to be a system put in place where we hire the most qualified, most knowledgeable people for the job--that want to do the job--and put them in a position where they can lead. Mayor Coody's remarks underscored my expectations that Federal agencies must be led by experienced and qualified senior leaders in order to ensure that agencies meet their mission. The same evening as our Committee hearing, I was privileged to present the 2005 Service to America Medal Federal Employee of the Year award to Orlando Figueroa, the Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs, Science Mission Directorate, at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. Figueroa led the Mars Exploration Rover Project to success under technical challenges and time constraints. He and his team at the Mars Exploration Rover Project created a mobile science lab was used to conduct remote exploration on the surface of another plant, which allowed the exploration of regions beyond the original landing site. This fantastic accomplishment has produced a wealth of scientific discoveries revealing Mars as a potential habitat, and I told Mr. Figueroa that to me, these discoveries spark the imagination, fuel the human spirit, and inspire us to pursue even greater things. Mr. Figueroa exemplifies leadership. The Federal Government is fortunate to have a cadre of career executives selected for their leadership, who are members of the Senior Executive Service, SES. To become a member of the SES, a candidate must possess the following five executive qualifications: leading change; leading people; being results driven; having business acumen; and building coalitions or having communication skills. SES candidates demonstrate these qualifications through experience in key executive skills such as leading others to rapidly adjust organizational behavior and work methods; supervising and managing a diverse workforce; developing strategic human capital management plans; establishing performance standards and plans; managing the budgetary process; overseeing the allocation of financial resources; and developing and maintaining positive working relationships with internal groups and external groups such as Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. These qualifications and experiences help ensure that the Federal Government's senior executives have the ability to establish a clear vision for the organization and to drive others to succeed. Political appointees are not required to meet these qualifications, however, but it would be difficult for any agency head to succeed without them. A recent Princeton University review, authored by Mr. David Lewis, underscored the need for political appointees to have such skills. He used the Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART, to analyze the relationship between political appointees and Federal manager performance. As my colleagues know, PART was designed by the Administration to measure program performance at Federal agencies. A PART review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. Mr. Lewis found that programs run by politically appointed managers receive systematically lower grades than those run by career managers and that the varied backgrounds of political appointees do not always translate into them being successful managers. Mr. Lewis' research shows the need for greater management experience and subject matter expertise for political appointees. Comptroller General David Walker said in a September 21, 2005, interview with Federal Times that ``for certain positions, given the nature of the position, there should be statutory qualification requirements for any nominee.'' I agree. Looking at the shortfalls in leadership at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the high number of political appointees at FEMA for the size of the agency, it is obvious that the political appointee-laden management structure may have created numerous problems, especially in the area of recruiting and retaining top emergency services personnel and the inability to stay focused on the agency's core mission of disaster preparedness and relief. There must be trust and integrity in Government and most of all in our leaders. The crises we face at home and abroad demonstrates the need for highly qualified individuals to lead our Government. There must be the right people, at the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. This is especially true at Federal agencies who need senior leaders, with management skills and subject matter expertise. More importantly, there should be an institutional loyalty and cultural sensitivity in working for the American people as a Federal employee.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. While Judge Roberts is a talented lawyer and Constitutional scholar, I do not believe that these qualities alone are sufficient for leading the highest court in the land. I approached this nomination as I do any nomination: with an open mind. I take my role of advice and consent on nominations seriously. That is why I joined a group of my colleagues in the Senate to respectfully ask the President to make available documents from Roberts' time in the Solicitor General's office. These documents could have provided valuable insight into how Roberts views important Constitutional questions, and I am disappointed that the White House did not fulfill this request. The White House owes not only the Senate, but also the American people, access to this information. And so I am left to wonder about Judge Roberts' positions on critical questions regarding our Constitution and our way of life. I continue to hope that Judge Roberts shares my understanding that the Constitution provides robust protections guaranteeing the equality of all Americans. I hope that Judge Roberts' view of the Constitution is not as narrow as I have been led to believe. However, neither the White House nor Judge Roberts has convinced me. On the contrary, they have given me reasons for alarm. Because the White House failed to respond to requests for Roberts' more recent work at the Solicitor General's office, the memoranda Judge Roberts wrote as a young lawyer in government service are all I have to go on. These memos raise serious concerns for me about Judge Roberts' commitment to protecting fundamental rights. Judge Roberts expressed views on civil rights, the Voting Rights Act, and the right to privacy convey a view of the Constitution that I simply do not agree with. I recognize that these memos were written a long time ago, which is why I reserved judgement until Judge Roberts had the opportunity to clarify his position on these issues at the hearings. I listened carefully for Judge Roberts to dispel concerns about these memoranda, hoping that Judge Roberts would clarify the values that would guide his deliberations as Chief Justice. While Judge Roberts would occasionally distance himself from his old memos, stating that he was simply an employee doing what his boss had asked of him, he never fully explained where he stands on these important issues now. Consequently, I am left with the memos to piece together Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy. These memos concerned me not only for the ideas they conveyed, but also the language that Judge Roberts chose to express his ideas. To me, phrases such as ``illegal amigo,'' ``Indian giveaway,'' and ``supposed right to privacy'' convey an unacceptable lack of respect for the people whose rights and freedoms Judge Roberts would be entrusted to protect. It disappointed me that, when asked whether he regretted his flippant tone, Judge Roberts not only deflected responsibility but also failed to articulate any semblance of regret for these hostile words. For these reasons, I cannot vote for this nominee. This was not an easy decision for me. I have great respect for my many friends--both inside and outside this body--who have come to a different conclusion. I hope the President will use his next nomination to appoint a justice whom all Senators can agree upon, and if doubts arise the White House will choose to resolve rather than exacerbate them.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal Protection Act, legislation intended to protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease. The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance. With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), which are related animal diseases found not only in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe. Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) diverts downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled to contaminate otherwise safe meat. There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases are limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feeds given to cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go far enough. Because they still allow the processing of downer cattle. According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European countries, downer cattle are among the highest risk population for BSE. According to the Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by 82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle, they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply. The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of livestock will be included in this bill. The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better quality. The reduction in the likelihood of the spread of diseases would result in safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce in livestock more easily attainable. Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in 2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain. Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress. American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal Protection Act, legislation intended to protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease. The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance. With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), which are related animal diseases found not only in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe. Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) diverts downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled to contaminate otherwise safe meat. There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases are limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feeds given to cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go far enough. Because they still allow the processing of downer cattle. According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European countries, downer cattle are among the highest risk population for BSE. According to the Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by 82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle, they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply. The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of livestock will be included in this bill. The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better quality. The reduction in the likelihood of the spread of diseases would result in safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce in livestock more easily attainable. Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in 2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain. Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress. American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1852.

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

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