Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will enhance transparency, strengthen oversight, and encourage responsible corporate governance for firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government. Our bill--the Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act--will achieve four essential objectives. It will prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or any of the $700 billion economic rescue funds from Treasury from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving government assistance provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and, create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill. The need for such legislation has become apparent in the weeks since Congress approved the economic rescue plan. Since then, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, which calls their assistance from taxpayers into question. Last week, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions. Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking. We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right. The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough. On October 16th, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Insurance Group, AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby state regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders. AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected. Before this bill, in some states virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license. Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back, and this served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament. Now AIG, having succumbed to bad investments and propped up by billions in government money, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of state laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place. Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations. I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I introduce today will make sure that doesn't happen. I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms. In September, just days after receiving an $85 billion federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges. AIG executives spent the last two days of September on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from Congressional leaders. As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that-- even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor. One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.'' Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet earlier this month, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines. One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms. But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG. The Wachovia Corporation was caught shipping its top brokers off to the Greek Isles on a cruise ship for an all-expenses paid luxury trip-- even as the company awaited a buyout potentially backed by taxpayers. Wachovia cancelled the trip due to the storm of criticism attracted by this stunning display of what the ancient Greeks called hubris. While the economic rescue legislation passed in September includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed, the bill does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars. This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving. The Treasury Department has already approved the purchase of $160 billion of preferred stock in 30 financial institutions. We know that of these funds $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks. It was also reported last week that AIG will receive an additional $40 billion, meaning that at least $165 billion of the economic rescue funding will be allocated to only 10 firms. When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion in economic rescue funds, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars. I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent. As the end of the year nears, we are approaching bonus time on Wall Street. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay higher bonuses. The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions. Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior. My vote on the economic stabilization bill was one of the toughest I have taken during my time in the Senate. My office received more than 160,000 calls, letters, and e-mails from Californians concerned about this course of action. But, I decided to support the bill to ensure that action would be quickly taken to ease the flow of credit to consumers and businesses. Our economy continues to struggle today. The money approved by Congress must be used sensibly to ensure its maximum impact. Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 7.7 percent, and foreclosure filings exceed 680,000 this year, is especially acute. This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill. This bill is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise. I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will enhance transparency, strengthen oversight, and encourage responsible corporate governance for firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government. Our bill--the Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act--will achieve four essential objectives. It will prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or any of the $700 billion economic rescue funds from Treasury from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving government assistance provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and, create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill. The need for such legislation has become apparent in the weeks since Congress approved the economic rescue plan. Since then, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, which calls their assistance from taxpayers into question. Last week, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions. Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking. We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right. The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough. On October 16th, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Insurance Group, AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby state regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders. AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected. Before this bill, in some states virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license. Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back, and this served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament. Now AIG, having succumbed to bad investments and propped up by billions in government money, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of state laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place. Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations. I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I introduce today will make sure that doesn't happen. I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms. In September, just days after receiving an $85 billion federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges. AIG executives spent the last two days of September on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from Congressional leaders. As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that-- even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor. One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.'' Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet earlier this month, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines. One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms. But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG. The Wachovia Corporation was caught shipping its top brokers off to the Greek Isles on a cruise ship for an all-expenses paid luxury trip-- even as the company awaited a buyout potentially backed by taxpayers. Wachovia cancelled the trip due to the storm of criticism attracted by this stunning display of what the ancient Greeks called hubris. While the economic rescue legislation passed in September includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed, the bill does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars. This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving. The Treasury Department has already approved the purchase of $160 billion of preferred stock in 30 financial institutions. We know that of these funds $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks. It was also reported last week that AIG will receive an additional $40 billion, meaning that at least $165 billion of the economic rescue funding will be allocated to only 10 firms. When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion in economic rescue funds, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars. I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent. As the end of the year nears, we are approaching bonus time on Wall Street. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay higher bonuses. The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions. Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior. My vote on the economic stabilization bill was one of the toughest I have taken during my time in the Senate. My office received more than 160,000 calls, letters, and e-mails from Californians concerned about this course of action. But, I decided to support the bill to ensure that action would be quickly taken to ease the flow of credit to consumers and businesses. Our economy continues to struggle today. The money approved by Congress must be used sensibly to ensure its maximum impact. Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 7.7 percent, and foreclosure filings exceed 680,000 this year, is especially acute. This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill. This bill is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise. I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 3685 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the Rules Committee and as chairman of the Joint House-Senate Inaugural Committee. I come to introduce legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the President's inauguration ceremony. The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a football game. This is not a football game. This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been proud because it is, in fact, the strength of our democracy--the fact that all across this great land people go to the polls and elect the next President of the United States, they don't take to the streets, they don't take to weapons. They elect the next President of the United States. We have all read the news reports: Tickets bid on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, some going as high as $40,000 each. Internet sites today are selling tickets they do not have and will not have unless somehow, some way they obtain them. I find it unconscionable. These tickets are supposed to be free for people, for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for Members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office, the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another. This is going to be a major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration. Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. So we must ensure that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves. These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. No one should have to pay for them. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. And then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way. I can tell you what I am going to do. We will ask people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They must be who they are if there are tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure essentially deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No Web sites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim. This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have. I want to say one thing. We are working now to see if there is any creative way we might be able to secure more tickets for the House and the Senate. We have followed protocol with exactly the same distribution system that existed in prior inaugurals, but it is clear that there are not as many tickets as there are requests. Those who violate the law under this legislation, if in fact it passes, would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both. I am also very pleased to tell you, Mr. President, that eBay and StubHub announced last week that they will not allow the sale of inaugural swearing-in tickets on any of their Web sites. I want to take this opportunity to thank them and to commend them for leading the way. It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation this week. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it on a hotline. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, they are free tickets to be given to the people. So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously by this body. I send it to the desk and thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the Rules Committee and as chairman of the Joint House-Senate Inaugural Committee. I come to introduce legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the President's inauguration ceremony. The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a football game. This is not a football game. This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been proud because it is, in fact, the strength of our democracy--the fact that all across this great land people go to the polls and elect the next President of the United States, they don't take to the streets, they don't take to weapons. They elect the next President of the United States. We have all read the news reports: Tickets bid on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, some going as high as $40,000 each. Internet sites today are selling tickets they do not have and will not have unless somehow, some way they obtain them. I find it unconscionable. These tickets are supposed to be free for people, for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for Members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office, the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another. This is going to be a major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration. Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. So we must ensure that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves. These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. No one should have to pay for them. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. And then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way. I can tell you what I am going to do. We will ask people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They must be who they are if there are tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure essentially deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No Web sites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim. This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have. I want to say one thing. We are working now to see if there is any creative way we might be able to secure more tickets for the House and the Senate. We have followed protocol with exactly the same distribution system that existed in prior inaugurals, but it is clear that there are not as many tickets as there are requests. Those who violate the law under this legislation, if in fact it passes, would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both. I am also very pleased to tell you, Mr. President, that eBay and StubHub announced last week that they will not allow the sale of inaugural swearing-in tickets on any of their Web sites. I want to take this opportunity to thank them and to commend them for leading the way. It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation this week. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it on a hotline. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, they are free tickets to be given to the people. So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously by this body. I send it to the desk and thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, they say Senators have 6-year terms so they can take tough votes when tough votes are called for, so that they can vote for the best interests of their country even sometimes when their constituents do not understand it or may be opposed to it. I have received 91,000 phone calls and e-mails from California, 85,000 of them opposed to this measure. There is a great deal of confusion out there. People don't understand. What was printed most prominently was the original Paulson proposal, a proposal which gave one man control over $700 billion to dispense as he chose, above the law, with no administrative view or legislative oversight. This is not that proposal. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, both sides of the Banking Committee. It would be one thing if we had a choice, but I do not believe we have a choice. Let me give you an example. In my State, we have 3.5 million small businesses. We have over 20 million people employed in those small businesses. Now, some businesses function on cash. Most function on credit. When credit is frozen, they cannot make payroll. And when they cannot make a payroll, they give out pink slips. So you will see, through electrical and plumbing contractors, retail establishments, even grocery stores, computer stores, automobile sales, we are now hearing from people who say they want to buy a home, they cannot get a mortgage; they want to get a car, they cannot get a loan. This is what is beginning to happen. This is not a give-away. This essentially is a strategic plan to buy assets, both good and bad, to pump liquidity into the market, to be able to free up credit, so that once again the economy can function. The Government will hold these assets. Over time we believe they will make money, and the Government will be the first paid back. So I think if we do care about the livelihood of our constituents, there is only one vote and it is yes. This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20. His bill was essentially a nonstarter--startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know. It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above congressional action, and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands of phone calls all across this land. My office has received over 91,000 calls and e-mails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's 3-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits, and other measures to protect taxpayers. But there still is a lot of misinformation on this bill. This is not a $700 billion gift for Wall Street. Rather, the--Federal Government will buy equity in certain assets, both good and bad to pump liquidity into the marketplace and unfreeze credit which is increasingly freezing and unavailable. Over time, these assets will be sold and the Federal Government will be the first paid back on the investment. The belief is that by doing this the Federal Government will clear much of the bad debt on the books of certain strategic financial institutions, restoring stability, adding liquidity, and unfreezing credit. Recently, we have seen major U.S. institutions fail: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG. And, two retail banks, not investment banks: Washington Mutual and Wachovia. If we do nothing, more institutions will fail. Now, you may say: What does this mean to me? I work hard, I pay my bills, I pay cash. Here's what it will mean to you: It will be harder for most Americans to get any credit. Therefore, jobs will be lost. And we may well face a deep recession. California has 3.75 million small businesses with an average of 5.6 employees. That adds up to over 20 million jobs. Some of these businesses are funded with cash, but most are funded with credit. When credit freezes, payrolls cannot be met. And when payrolls cannot be met, pink slips are sent out. And this will happen to retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, electrical and plumbing contractors, apparel manufacturers, computer and electronics stores, and auto dealerships. Sales at auto dealerships have fallen dramatically in the past year. Ford sales are down 34 percent, Chrysler sales are down 33 percent, Toyota sales are down 29 percent, and GM sales are down 16 percent. The list will go on and on. Importantly, there have now been several improvements to this bill. First, The FDIC insurance rate covering bank deposits has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Americans will know that their deposits are secure up to $250,000. The legislation will provide tax relief to working families. One example: the Alternative Minimum Tax is a real problem. It was meant to apply only to 200 wealthy people, but it was never adjusted for inflation and it has crept down the income scale to the point where more than 25 million taxpayers today may well have to pay an Alternative Minimum Tax. In California, 700,000 people paid this tax last year. But 4 million Californians will pay that tax this year unless we take action. This bill takes that action. For 1 year it will prevent this tax increase. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill and concluded that the net cost to taxpayers is ``likely to be substantially less than $700 billion.'' Again, these investments are first in line to be paid back. It must be remembered that there was a great deal of criticism when the U.S. Government bailed out Mexico in 1996 with $20 billion. The fact is, the money was paid back ahead of time and $600 million in profit was made. Let me give you the following points. This bill mandates that the Government provide loan modifications for the subprime mortgages it acquires. This will help keep families in homes rather than foreclosing and putting the house on a deteriorating housing market where property values drop and homes are looted. The bill limits executive compensation. It provides strong oversight and accountability, including a financial stability oversight board, a five-member congressional oversight panel, an inspector general, and a constant presence at Treasury by the Government Accountability Office. This is the only choice Congress can make. One can rail against it and vote ``no'' on it, but that is not going to solve the problem. We have one chance, and one chance only, to solve the problem, and it is this bill. I wish I could write it differently. Others wish they could write it differently, but the fact is that we are faced with this. Again, there is no question this is a tough vote. But there is no question that this is a vote that I believe has to be made.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 3 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hutchison for their work on this bill. It is very a good bill. I am very proud of it. I am proud of them. I hope all Members will support it. This bill does much to benefit rail. I deeply believe that rail has a future. My own State, California, has a $10 billion bond issue on the ballot this November to begin the funding of a high-speed rail down the center of California. So rail can be very important in the future. The bill has many good points. I want to concentrate on just one thing and what I just learned from the National Transportation and Safety Board. That one thing is that this bill would give the rail administration the ability to prohibit cell phone use. I would like the chairman and the ranking member to know what I just learned through an NTSB press conference. The engineer on the Metrolink train, the day of the accident, from about a quarter of 7 to a quarter of 9 in the morning, as he was an engineer on the train, sent and received 45 text messages on his cell phone in a little more than an hour. In the afternoon, when he was on duty from 2 p.m. to about 3:30, he sent and received 12 messages on his cell phone. One of them was 22 seconds before the accident. With this kind of cell phone use while an active engineer on a Metrolink train right around the time of an accident, you can see the kind of problem it is. There is no second set of eyes on this train. So this National Transportation Safety Board press release this afternoon is a revelation. This cannot be happening on other trains. A great deal of our track in California is single track. It has both freight and passenger rail on it, sometimes in opposite directions. To have an engineer in an hour and 15 minutes sending or being part of 45 text messages on a cell phone is not what an operating engineer should be doing on a train. I thank the chairman. He has done a great job. My pal Senator Hutchison has done a great job. This is a bill that will stand the test of time. It is an important bill for Amtrak, for the rail administration, and for rail safety and positive train controls. I thank them all for their work and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Over-the- Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act, a bill to establish workable speculative position limits that apply to both bilateral over-the- counter swaps transactions and on-exchange transactions. The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would close the ``over-the-counter swaps loophole'' once and for all by requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--or CFTC--to apply the position limit system to bilateral swaps, not just the on-exchange transactions that are limited today. Let me explain what the bill would do: CFTC would enforce ``aggregate'' position limits so that a trader's positions on and off exchange would be combined. Swaps would no longer be exempt from position limits. CFTC would be allowed to grant hedge exemptions for bone fide hedging. This exemption would be limited to trading that hedges against price risk exposure related to physical transactions in that energy commodity. Neither institutional investors hedging against inflation, nor swaps dealers hedging their secret dealings would qualify for a hedge exemption. The bill would give CFTC the power to issue civil fines to enforce position limits when unwinding a speculative position would be disruptive to the marketplace. This legislation is the missing piece to otherwise comprehensive anti-speculation legislation debated in the Senate in July and adopted by the House of Representatives in September. Both of the House and Senate bills included vital provisions to protect our markets, including provisions to close the London Loophole by imposing speculation position limits on trading conducted on Foreign Boards of Trade. It would grant CFTC the authority to collect data and monitor trading in Over-the-Counter Swaps markets, shining the bright light of oversight onto a previously un-watched market. It would improve the data collection systems at CFTC to distinguish between swaps dealers, institutional investors, and genuine speculators; It would assure no true speculator is exempted from speculative position limits; and increase CFTC's staffing levels. Reacting to congressional pressure, the CFTC took many of the steps through administrative action that our bills in Congress would have required. CFTC largely closed the London Loophole and began monitoring London trading of American crude oil. CFTC began collecting detailed data on OTC swaps trading, especially by swaps dealers and institutional index traders, and it began monitoring these markets. CFTC reclassified a major swaps dealer as a speculator and proposed a rulemaking to revise its system for granting speculative limit exemptions. This is true progress, but the swaps loophole--exempting voice brokered bilateral swaps from the speculative position limit system-- remains in place. Traders are able to hold positions far above speculative position limits simply by executing their trades through a voice broker. Until this summer, the Federal Government knew very little about OTC swaps, which have been exempt from CFTC oversight since 1993. But thanks to CFTC's increased oversight this summer, published in its September 2008 ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders,'' we know that traders do in fact use these swaps markets to hold positions above the speculative position limits on regulated exchanges. The CFTC report found that on a single day in June there were: ``18 noncommercial traders (speculators) in 13 markets who appeared to have an aggregate position . . . that would have been above the speculative limit or an exchange accountability level if all the positions were on-exchange.'' CFTC discovered that a few traders held positions that would have ``significantly exceeded'' an aggregate position limit. What is the purpose of speculative position limits if traders know they can buy the equivalent product in unlimited quantities from a voice broker? The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act puts an end to this flawed system by instructing CFTC to establish a system of aggregate position limits. As the staff report demonstrated, CFTC knows how to calculate such limits. I believe this legislation avoids the pitfalls of previous efforts in the 110th Congress to limit speculative positions in swaps. It is simple, granting CFTC the broad mandate to impose aggregate position limits across positions held on registered entities, foreign boards of trade, and OTC markets that impact the price discovery function of a regulated market. It grants the regulator proper discretion to determine which contracts are functionally equivalent and what the limits should be. It applies speculative position limits only to swaps that impact the price discovery function on regulated markets. By focusing CFTC efforts only on the major, standardized swaps contracts, the bill maintains legal certainty for unique financing agreements and other private bilateral transactions. The bill also prevents speculators from migrating to less regulated contracts. CFTC will only be allowed to exempt contracts from position limits after it determines that the contract is not functioning as a haven from regulation. CFTC must impose speculative position limits on any contract that: is highly standardized; settles on the price of a contracted traded in a regulated marketplace; has its prices widely published and referenced; or traded in significant volumes. Finally, the legislation addresses CFTC staff concerns that enforcing position limits on bilateral swaps contracts would be too cumbersome. In recent briefings, CFTC staff argued that the primary reason CFTC was not calling for speculative position limits on swaps is that position limits on swaps would force parties to void existing contracts, which harms the counterparty as much as the trader who is over their limit. Regulators should not force a trader to break a contract if such action would punish the counterparties as well as the speculator. To address this, this legislation gives CFTC the power to enforce position limits with fines instead of forcing a trader to unwind a position. Over the past 6 months, OTC swaps markets have been exposed, and it has become increasingly apparent that speculative position limits are both appropriate and feasible in order to protect regulated markets from manipulation and excessive speculation. The regulated and unregulated energy markets are fully integrated. With traders moving back and forth freely, it is no longer reasonable to believe that bad behavior in swaps can be isolated. A manipulated swaps market would likely impact the price discovery function of a futures market, and in turn affect consumer prices. If we want fair play in the energy markets, we cannot continue to instruct the CFTC to swallow its whistle when it sees violations at the Swaps' end of the court. We need to allow CFTC to call foul when it sees excessive speculation, whether on an exchange or in a voice brokered swaps market. The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would give the CFTC back its whistle. It would allow the Commission to use the speculative position limit system in existence since the 1930s--to reel in excessive speculation in American energy markets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the legislation approving the United States--India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. While I have concerns about this agreement's impact on the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the speed with which it has come to the floor for a vote, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the United States and our relationship with India and, with vigorous oversight, will help strengthen our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. This agreement has wide bipartisan support. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported this legislation favorably on a 19-2 vote. Last Saturday, the House approved this agreement by a vote of 298 to 117 and I am hopeful the Senate will follow suit tonight. While far from perfect, I believe this agreement will mark a first step towards bringing India into the nuclear nonproliferation regime. For years, India and the United States have failed to take advantage of our shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in developing a closer partnership. I am hopeful this agreement will serve as a catalyst for solidifying relations with the world's largest democracy in a critical part of the world and enhance U.S.-India cooperation on a number of pressing issues: global warming, the war on terror, and stability in South Asia. I do not take this vote lightly. As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to stop the development of new nuclear weapons and strengthen our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. I have introduced legislation calling for a strengthened Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I have fought against the research and development of new nuclear weapons like the robust nuclear Earth penetrator and the reliable replacement warhead program. I have secured additional funding to remove vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. I have supported efforts to accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs. Because of my commitment to nuclear nonproliferation efforts, I initially approached plans for a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement with some skepticism: 8 of India's 22 nuclear reactors-- including India's fast breeder reactors, which can produce massive amounts of plutonium for nuclear weapon--will be classified for military uses and thus will remain outside of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India will retain the right to designate future nuclear reactors as ``military'' and not subject to international safeguards. India will continue to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons and has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Nevertheless, I supported the Hyde Act of 2006 which authorized the President to conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement with India because it included provisions which would help preserve the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Under the terms of that bill any nuclear cooperation agreement will be terminated if India conducts a nuclear test, proliferates nuclear weapons or nuclear materials, or breaks its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency; the President must determine that India is meeting its nonproliferation commitments; the Nuclear Suppliers Group must decide by consensus and according to its rules to open nuclear trade with India; the export of any equipment, materials, or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the production of heavy water is prohibited; the President must create a program to monitor the end use of items exported to India to ensure that they are not diverted to nonpeaceful activities; and no action may be taken to violate U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The question now before us is whether the agreement negotiated by the Bush administration conforms with the Hyde Act and U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts. I understand the serious questions that have been raised by many nuclear nonproliferation experts and my colleagues about critical parts of this agreement. By opening trade in civil nuclear fuel and technologies, will this agreement indirectly benefit India's nuclear weapons program by freeing up domestic resources for military purposes? Does India agree with the administration that, under U.S. law, if India breaks its moratorium and tests a nuclear weapon U.S. nuclear trade will be terminated? Will our partners in the Nuclear Suppliers Group follow suit? Why has India not filed a declaration with the International Atomic Energy Agency of its civil nuclear facilities that will be subject to international safeguards as required by the Hyde Act? Why did the exemption for India approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group not include guidelines baring transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies to states, like India, who have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I believe the legislation now before us addresses many of these concerns. It requires the President to certify that the agreement is consistent with our obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and will not help India acquire or build nuclear weapons; states that it is the policy of the United States that, in the event nuclear trade between India and the United States is suspended, such as following a Indian nuclear test, the United States will work to prevent the transfer of nuclear technologies and materials from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or any other source. It also requires the President to certify that the safeguards agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency has come into force and India has filed a declaration of its civil nuclear facilities that will be subject to those safeguards before nuclear trade can begin. It also requires the President to certify that it is the policy of the United States to work with the other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to restrict the transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies relating to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. And while I appreciate the assurances from the administration that, in accordance with U.S. law, nuclear trade with India would cease in the event a nuclear test, I will support an amendment by Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman to make this action clear. As I indicated before, I would have preferred more time to debate this critical agreement. Yet I am also conscious of the fact that if we had used the full 30 days to consider this agreement, we would be presented with a simple up or down vote on a one sentence resolution approving the agreement. I appreciate the fact that we have the opportunity with this legislation to lock in additional requirements and oversight of U.S.- Indian nuclear trade. U.S.-Indian relations have come a long ways since the days of the Cold War. We have overcome distrust and skepticism and have begun to build a fruitful, mutually beneficial relationship between the world's largest democracy and the world's oldest democracy. Whatever the problems we will face in the global arena in the next century, we will need to work with India. By approving this legislation, we will not only open the door to the trade in nuclear materials and nuclear technology--and provide new opportunities for U.S. businesses--we will open the door to closer cooperation on issues vital to U.S. national security interests in South Asia and around the world. This is not the end of our efforts to bring India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream. This is one step that should be followed by close congressional oversight and robust and sustained American diplomacy. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Over-the- Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act, a bill to establish workable speculative position limits that apply to both bilateral over-the- counter swaps transactions and on-exchange transactions. The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would close the ``over-the-counter swaps loophole'' once and for all by requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--or CFTC--to apply the position limit system to bilateral swaps, not just the on-exchange transactions that are limited today. Let me explain what the bill would do: CFTC would enforce ``aggregate'' position limits so that a trader's positions on and off exchange would be combined. Swaps would no longer be exempt from position limits. CFTC would be allowed to grant hedge exemptions for bone fide hedging. This exemption would be limited to trading that hedges against price risk exposure related to physical transactions in that energy commodity. Neither institutional investors hedging against inflation, nor swaps dealers hedging their secret dealings would qualify for a hedge exemption. The bill would give CFTC the power to issue civil fines to enforce position limits when unwinding a speculative position would be disruptive to the marketplace. This legislation is the missing piece to otherwise comprehensive anti-speculation legislation debated in the Senate in July and adopted by the House of Representatives in September. Both of the House and Senate bills included vital provisions to protect our markets, including provisions to close the London Loophole by imposing speculation position limits on trading conducted on Foreign Boards of Trade. It would grant CFTC the authority to collect data and monitor trading in Over-the-Counter Swaps markets, shining the bright light of oversight onto a previously un-watched market. It would improve the data collection systems at CFTC to distinguish between swaps dealers, institutional investors, and genuine speculators; It would assure no true speculator is exempted from speculative position limits; and increase CFTC's staffing levels. Reacting to congressional pressure, the CFTC took many of the steps through administrative action that our bills in Congress would have required. CFTC largely closed the London Loophole and began monitoring London trading of American crude oil. CFTC began collecting detailed data on OTC swaps trading, especially by swaps dealers and institutional index traders, and it began monitoring these markets. CFTC reclassified a major swaps dealer as a speculator and proposed a rulemaking to revise its system for granting speculative limit exemptions. This is true progress, but the swaps loophole--exempting voice brokered bilateral swaps from the speculative position limit system-- remains in place. Traders are able to hold positions far above speculative position limits simply by executing their trades through a voice broker. Until this summer, the Federal Government knew very little about OTC swaps, which have been exempt from CFTC oversight since 1993. But thanks to CFTC's increased oversight this summer, published in its September 2008 ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders,'' we know that traders do in fact use these swaps markets to hold positions above the speculative position limits on regulated exchanges. The CFTC report found that on a single day in June there were: ``18 noncommercial traders (speculators) in 13 markets who appeared to have an aggregate position . . . that would have been above the speculative limit or an exchange accountability level if all the positions were on-exchange.'' CFTC discovered that a few traders held positions that would have ``significantly exceeded'' an aggregate position limit. What is the purpose of speculative position limits if traders know they can buy the equivalent product in unlimited quantities from a voice broker? The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act puts an end to this flawed system by instructing CFTC to establish a system of aggregate position limits. As the staff report demonstrated, CFTC knows how to calculate such limits. I believe this legislation avoids the pitfalls of previous efforts in the 110th Congress to limit speculative positions in swaps. It is simple, granting CFTC the broad mandate to impose aggregate position limits across positions held on registered entities, foreign boards of trade, and OTC markets that impact the price discovery function of a regulated market. It grants the regulator proper discretion to determine which contracts are functionally equivalent and what the limits should be. It applies speculative position limits only to swaps that impact the price discovery function on regulated markets. By focusing CFTC efforts only on the major, standardized swaps contracts, the bill maintains legal certainty for unique financing agreements and other private bilateral transactions. The bill also prevents speculators from migrating to less regulated contracts. CFTC will only be allowed to exempt contracts from position limits after it determines that the contract is not functioning as a haven from regulation. CFTC must impose speculative position limits on any contract that: is highly standardized; settles on the price of a contracted traded in a regulated marketplace; has its prices widely published and referenced; or traded in significant volumes. Finally, the legislation addresses CFTC staff concerns that enforcing position limits on bilateral swaps contracts would be too cumbersome. In recent briefings, CFTC staff argued that the primary reason CFTC was not calling for speculative position limits on swaps is that position limits on swaps would force parties to void existing contracts, which harms the counterparty as much as the trader who is over their limit. Regulators should not force a trader to break a contract if such action would punish the counterparties as well as the speculator. To address this, this legislation gives CFTC the power to enforce position limits with fines instead of forcing a trader to unwind a position. Over the past 6 months, OTC swaps markets have been exposed, and it has become increasingly apparent that speculative position limits are both appropriate and feasible in order to protect regulated markets from manipulation and excessive speculation. The regulated and unregulated energy markets are fully integrated. With traders moving back and forth freely, it is no longer reasonable to believe that bad behavior in swaps can be isolated. A manipulated swaps market would likely impact the price discovery function of a futures market, and in turn affect consumer prices. If we want fair play in the energy markets, we cannot continue to instruct the CFTC to swallow its whistle when it sees violations at the Swaps' end of the court. We need to allow CFTC to call foul when it sees excessive speculation, whether on an exchange or in a voice brokered swaps market. The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would give the CFTC back its whistle. It would allow the Commission to use the speculative position limit system in existence since the 1930s--to reel in excessive speculation in American energy markets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. This is the House companion legislation to the Senate bill that I originally introduced, with Senator Sessions, to protect the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions for controlled substances over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies. Today, Congress took the first important step in stemming the tide of online drug trafficking. Perhaps more importantly, Congress took the first steps toward ensuring that children and teens no longer overdose, or worse die, after purchasing controlled substances without a prescription from rogue Internet pharmacies. This bill will do the following: Bar the sale or distribution of all controlled substances over the Internet without a valid prescription; Require online pharmacies to display on their Web site a statement of compliance with U.S. law and DEA regulations--allowing consumers to know which pharmacies are safe and which are not; Clarify that rogue pharmacies that sell drugs over the Internet will face the same penalties as people who illegally sell the same drugs on the street; Increase the Federal penalties for illegally distributing controlled substances; And create a new Federal cause of action that would allow a State attorney general to shut down a rogue Web site selling controlled substances. In addition, I would like to clarify that the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 regulates practices related to the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance by means of the Internet. The act does not address the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of any noncontrolled substance by the Internet or any other means. This bill does not infringe upon the powers of the Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary with respect to noncontrolled substances. Nor does it infringe upon the traditional power of the States to regulate the practices of medicine and pharmacy with respect to the prescription of noncontrolled substances. Delivery, distribution, or dispensing of noncontrolled substances, approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the regulatory bodies of the States, are not affected by the act. The Senate Committee report reflects Congress's intent related to this issue and is applicable to H.R. 6353. In closing, I wish to share the story of this bill's namesake, Ryan T. Haight. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy. It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay. Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers. Ryan's story is just one of many. Rogue Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens such as Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. This bill is the first step against that terrible tide. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy Web sites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs. I thank my House and Senate colleagues for passing this important bill. I also specifically thank Representatives Bart Stupak, Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Mary Bono Mack, and John Dingell, and Senators Sessions and Leahy for their hard work and leadership in securing the passage of this bill. I urge the President to sign this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week by voice vote. This legislation is necessary in order to make our rail lines safe. I encourage my colleagues to support it. First, I thank Chairman Inouye, Chairman Lautenberg, and Senator Hutchison for their terrific leadership on this important bill. They worked in a bipartisan fashion to advance the first comprehensive rail safety bill since 1994. I appreciate their genuine efforts to make America's rail system as safe as possible. The Rail Safety Improvement Act would prevent train accidents by deploying new safety technology. It would also take steps to minimize train worker distraction and fatigue, and it would help those impacted by accidents. Finally, it would invest in the future of rail, in which I firmly believe. Let me explain what this bill does. After years of delay, this bill will mandate and authorize new funding for the installation of advanced train collision avoidance systems known as positive train control. It will also address grade crossings--establishing a grant program to fund improvements at crossings with a history of deadly collisions. This bill will limit trainmen shifts to 12 hours, preventing tired engineers from falling asleep at the throttle; it will establish new hours of service rules tailored to ensure commuter rail line workers are rested; it will improve training for those who work the rails, and; it will permit the Federal Railroad Administration to ban cell phone use and other distractions. The bill will create a program to assist victims and their families involved in passenger rail accidents. The bill will also lay out a path that will guide the future of rail in America. It invests in Amtrak; it establishes competitive grants to expand the existing rail network into new areas; and it establishes significant Federal support for developing high speed rail in the United States. This legislation is necessary and long overdue. Congress has not reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration--the FRA--since 1994, and without congressional guidance FRA has failed to respond to the National Transportation Safety Board's repeated calls for improvements. For example: NTSB has called for positive train control collision avoidance systems since the 1970s, and NTSB has called on FRA to ban the use of cell phones by engineers on duty since 2003. Without guidance from Congress, the FRA has done neither. Beyond the calls made by NTSB, in California, three deadly crashes involving the Metrolink commuter rail system since 2002 demonstrate that the FRA needs a new mandate. In 2002, a freight train in Orange County, CA, ran a signal and crashed into a stopped commuter train, killing three and injuring hundreds. NTSB found the collision would have been prevented by Positive Train Control, but nothing changed. In 2005, a Metrolink train hit a vehicle left on the tracks at a highway rail intersection. This crash, which killed 11 southern Californians, was not unique. Such intersections lead to an average of 3,081 collisions and 368 deaths each year. Seventeen days ago in Chatsworth, a Union Pacific freight train collided head-on with a Metrolink commuter train carrying 225 people headed home for the weekend. Twenty-five people died and 135 were injured. In response to this terrible tragedy, I joined with Senator Boxer to introduce legislation requiring positive train control systems on America's trains--with priority given to high-risk routes where passenger and freight trains share the same tracks. How can we have fully loaded freight and passenger trains traveling on the same track in opposite directions with nothing more to prevent a collision than signals and the attentiveness of a single engineer? How can we apply 19th century safety systems to a very serious modern day problem? This is a particularly acute issue in California, which has a great deal of single track, heavily traveled rail. Mr. President, 41 percent--51 of the 125-mile--Los Angeles to San Diego Amtrak and commuter rail corridor is single track. This is the second most heavily traveled passenger rail line in the United States. On the Amtrak and commuter rail line from L.A. north to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, 80 percent the track is single-tracked--177 of 225 miles, with only limited passing sides. Also 88 percent--75 of 85 miles--of the Altamont Commuter Express commuter rail linking Stockton and San Jose is single track. In California, we cannot afford to wait for crash avoidance systems to come down in cost. We need action now. Let me point out for a minute how positive train control works. Every train's position is tracked through global positioning, which is new technology that can monitor its location and speed. These systems constantly watch for excessive speed, improperly aligned switches, whether trains are on the wrong track, unauthorized train movements, and whether trains have missed signals to slow or stop. Each train also has equipment on board that can take over from the engineer if the train doesn't comply with the safety signals. The system will override the engineer and automatically put on the brakes. Versions of these systems exist and are in use today. They are in place in the Chicago-Detroit corridor and Amtrak has a system in the Northeast corridor. San Diego has a more simple system, known as Automatic Train Stop, which has been in existence since the 1940s and would have probably prevented the Metrolink's most recent deadly crash. But the railroad industry resists these collision prevention systems. They ask for more time. They say that the technology is still being developed. By enacting the Rail Safety Improvement Act, Congress will demonstrate that it gets the message that positive train control will save lives. This legislation includes key parts of the Rail Collision Prevention Act that Senator Boxer and I introduced. The positive train control systems mandated by this bill will prevent 40 to 60 train crashes a year and save lives. And FRA will have the power to issue civil penalties if the systems are not in place. While the bill that Senator Boxer and I introduced would have required collision avoidance systems on high risk track to be in place earlier than this legislation, the Rail Safety Improvement Act is nevertheless a major step in the right direction. The FRA will have the power to move deadlines up on the highest risk rail routes, and I fully expect FRA to impose aggressive deadlines on single track, heavily traveled rail lines. I believe we must do all we can to see that the Senate acts on it before the session comes to a close. I believe rail has a bright future in America but only if the public's safety is assured.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of critical importance to the security of our borders and our Nation. It is estimated that at least 15 million people enter the United States through the visa waiver program each year. Thousands of these people overstay their authorized visit, and many just simply disappear into the shadows. This country cannot afford to continue this trend. The Department of Homeland Security and its partners must have the tools they need to protect Americans by tracking the millions who enter our country, including some who may wish on us grievous harm and injury. A biometric system is one of the best tools we have to protect us from the use of fraudulent and stolen passports and other international documents. We need to make sure people are who they claim to be. Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports and visas that were destined for overseas embassies. Clearly, DHS cannot continue to add new countries into the visa waiver program without properly mitigating the security risks. That is why Congress passed a provision in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act just last year requiring the Department of Homeland Security to implement a biometric air exit system. This biometric system is required to be in place by June 30, 2009. The intent of Congress was and remains clear: There must be in place a fully operational biometric air exit system, or else the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot admit new countries into the visa waiver program. Therefore, if such a biometric system is not implemented by June 30, 2009, the Secretary's authority to admit new countries with visa refusal rates above 3 percent shall be suspended until a biometric exit system is fully operational. This is critical to ensuring the ability to track the arrivals and departures of foreign nationals--not just through a paper trail, but through fingerprints, photographs, and other fraud-proof biometric identifiers. The bill that we are considering today cuts off funding for the biometric air exit system until reports are received by Congress on pilot tests of the air exit solution. We simply cannot afford to delay the execution of the biometric exit system. Congress should not be restricting DHS's ability to protect our borders and our people. However, if the biometric system is delayed and the Department of Homeland Security is unable to meet the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009, the visa waiver program should not be expanded. That is the intent of the authorizing language and that is what's best to protect the security of our Nation. The biometric air exit system was mandated as a result of the horrific events of 9/11. We are a different country today and we must learn the lessons of September 11 and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We cannot afford to go backwards as a country and Congress must do all that it can to protect our Nation and prevent another tragedy like 9/11.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I am next in line to make remarks as in morning business, and I wish to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Financial Crisis

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, to date I have received from Californians more than 50,000 calls and letters, the great bulk of them in opposition to any form of meeting this crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. I wanted to come to the floor to very simply state how I see this and some of the principles that I hope will be forthcoming in this draft. Before I do so, I wish to pay particular commendation to Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennett, and others who have been working so hard on this issue. I have tried to keep in touch--I am not a negotiator; I am not on the committee--but California is the biggest State, the largest economic engine, and people are really concerned. We face the most significant economic crisis in 75 years right now. Swift and comprehensive action is crucial to the overall health of our economy. None of us wants to be in this position, and there are no good options here. Nobody likes the idea of spending massive sums of Government money to rescue major corporations from their bad financial decisions. But no one also should be fooled into thinking this problem only belongs to the banks and that it is a good idea to let them fail. The pain felt by Wall Street one day is felt there, and then 2, 3, 4 weeks down the pike, it is felt on Main Street. The turbulence in our financial sector has already resulted in thousands of layoffs in the banking and finance sectors, and that number will skyrocket if there is a full collapse. The shock waves of failure will extend far beyond the banking and finance sectors. A shrinking pool of credit would affect the home loans, credit card limits, auto loans, and insurance policies of average Americans. I am receiving calls from people who tell me they want to buy a house, but they can't get the credit or the mortgage to do so. Why? Because that market of credit is drying up more rapidly one day after the other. It would have a major impact on State and local governments which would lose tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Hurricane Ike shut down refineries on the gulf coast 2 weeks ago, and now, today, people are waiting hours in lines for gasoline in the South. Similarly, the collapse of the financial sector would have severe consequences for Americans all across the economic spectrum: for the person who owns the grocery store, the laundry, the bank, the insurance company. Then, if the worst happens, layoffs. And even more than that, somebody shows up for work and finds their business has closed because the owner of that business can't get credit to buy the goods he hopes to sell that week or that month. Wages and employment rates have already fallen even as the cost of basic necessities has skyrocketed. Our Nation is facing the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, at 6.1 percent. Over 605,000 jobs have been lost nationwide this year. My own State of California, a state of 38 million people, has the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7.7 percent. That is 1.4 million people out of work today. One and a half million people-- that is bigger than some States. We have 1.5 million people out of work, and one-half million have had their unemployment insurance expire and have nothing today. Congress is faced with a situation where we have to act and we have to do two things. We have to provide some reform in the system of regulation and oversight that is supposed to protect our economy. We also have to find a permanent and effective solution to keep liquidity and credit functioning so that markets can recover and make profit. The situation, I believe, is grave, and timely, prudent action is needed. Just last night, the sixth largest bank in America--Washington Mutual--was seized by government regulators and most of its assets will be sold to JPMorgan Chase. This follows on the heels of bankruptcies and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. If nothing is done, the crisis will continue to spread and one by one the dominos will fall. Now, this isn't just about Wall Street. Because we are this credit society, the financial troubles facing major economic institutions will ricochet throughout this Nation and affect everyone. So I believe the need for action is clear. But that doesn't mean Congress should simply be a rubberstamp for an unprecedented and unbridled program. My constituents by the thousands have made their views clear. I believe they are responding to the original 3-page proposal by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is clear by now that that 3-page proposal is a nonstarter. It is dead on arrival and that is good. Secretary Paulson's proposal asked Congress to write a $700 billion check to an economic czar who would have been empowered to spend it without any administrative oversight, legal requirements, or legislative review. Decisions made by the Treasury Secretary would be nonreviewable by any court or agency, and the fate of our entire economy would be committed to the sole discretion of one man alone--the man we know today, and the man whom we don't know after January. Additionally, the lack of governance or oversight in this plan was matched by the lack of a requirement for regular reports to Congress. This proposal stipulated that the economic czar, newly created, would report to Congress after the first three months with reports once every 6 months after that. This was untenable. Six months is an eternity when you are spending billions a week. The Treasury Secretary asked Congress to approve this massive program without delay or interference. It is hard to think of any other time in our history when Congress has been asked for so much money and so much power to be concentrated in the hands of one person. It is a nonstarter. Yesterday, shortly before we met for the Democratic Policy Committee lunch, we were told there had been a bipartisan agreement on principles of a possible solution, and many of us rejoiced. We know that our Members, both Republican and Democrat, have been working hard to try to produce something that was positive. Then, all of a sudden, it changed. One Presidential candidate parachuted into town which proved to be enormously destructive to the process. Now, negotiations are back on the table, and as I say, we have just received a draft bill of certain principles. I would like to outline quickly those principles that I think are important. First is a phase-in. No one wants to put $700 billion immediately at the discretion of one person or even a group of a very few people, no matter how bright, how skilled, how informed they might be on banking or finance principles. The funding should come in phases and Congress should have the opportunity to make its voice heard if the program isn't working or needs to be adjusted. The second point: Oversight, accountability, and governance. The Treasury Secretary should not and must not have unbridled authority to determine winners and losers, essentially choosing which struggling financial institution will survive and which will not. The original plan placed all authority in the hands of this one man, and this is why I say it was DOA--dead on arrival--at the Congress. We must assure that controls are in place to watch taxpayer dollars and make sure they are well-spent fixing the problem, and that oversight by a governance committee and the Banking Committees are strong, and that they give the best opportunity for the American people to recover their investment and, yes, even eventually make a profit from that investment. That can be done and it has been done in the past. I believe that frequent reporting to Congress is critical. Transparency, sunlight on this, is critical. So Congress should receive regular, timely briefings, perhaps weekly for the first quarter, on a program of this magnitude. A proposal should mandate frequent reporting and the public should be ensured of transparency to the maximum extent possible. I also believe that within the first quarter--and this, to me, is key--a comprehensive legislative proposal for reform must be put forward. We must reform those speculative practices that impact price function of markets. We must deal with the unregulated practices that have furthered this crisis. Look. I represent a State that was cost $40 billion in the Enron episode during 1999 and 2000 by speculation, by manipulation, and by fraud. There still is inadequate regulation of energy commodities sold on the futures market. And that is just one point in all of this. We must prevent these things from happening. The only way to do it is to improve the transparency of all markets. No hidden deals. Swaps, in my view, should be ended. The London loophole should be ended. We have to outline rules for increasing regulation of the mortgage- backed securities market, along with comprehensive oversight of the mortgage industry and lending practices for both prime and subprime lending. Senator Martinez of Florida and I had a part in the earlier housing bill, which included our legislation entitled the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. We found that the market was rife with fraud. We found there was one company that hired hairdressers and others who sold mortgages in their spare time. We found there were unscrupulous mortgage brokers out there unlicensed, preying upon people, walking off with tens of thousands of dollars of cash. This has to end. It has to be controlled. It has to be regulated. So I believe the crisis of 2008 stems from the failure of Federal regulators to rein in this Wild West mentality of those Wall Street executives who led those firms and who thought that nothing was out of bounds. Every quick scheme was worth the time, and worth a try. Congress cannot ignore this as the root cause of the crisis. It was inherent in the subprime marketplace, and it has now spread to the prime mortgage marketplace. It is also critical that accurate assessments of the value of these illiquid mortgage-related assets be performed to limit the taxpayers' exposure to risk and structure purchases to ensure the greatest possible return on investment. Taxpayer money must be shielded at all costs from risk to the greatest extent possible. Reciprocity is not a bad concept if you can carry it out. The Government must not simply act as a repository for risky investments that have gone bad. An economic rescue effort that serves taxpayers well must allow them to benefit from the potential profits of rescued entities. So a model--and it may well be in these new principles--must be developed to ensure the taxpayers are not only the first paid back but have an opportunity to share in future profits through warrants and/or stocks. As to executive compensation limits, simply put, Californians are frosted by the absence of controls on executive compensation. Virtually all of the 50,000 phone calls and letters mentioned this one way or another. There must be limits. I am told that the reason the Treasury Secretary does not want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then will not bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Here is my response to that: We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean, and set it on fire. If that is how he feels, that is what should happen, or his company doesn't come in. But to say that the Federal Government is going to be responsible for tens of millions of dollars of executive salaries, golden parachutes, whether they are a matter of contract right or not, is not acceptable to the average person whose taxpayer dollars are used in this bailout. That is just fact. The one proposal that was made by one of the Presidential candidates that I agree with is that there should be a limit of $400,000 on executive compensation. If they don't like it, too bad, don't participate in the program. As I have talked with people on Wall Street and otherwise, they don't believe it is true that an executive, if his pay is tailored down, will not bring a company in that needs help. I hope that is true. I believe there should be precise limits set on executive pay. Finally, as to tangible benefits for Main Street in the form of mortgage relief, there have been more than 500,000 foreclosures in my home State of California so far this year. In the second quarter of this year, foreclosures were up 300 percent over the second quarter of 2007. More than 800,000 are predicted before this year is over. I have a city in California where 1 out of every 25 homes is in foreclosure. This is new housing in subdivisions. As you look at it, you will see garage doors kicked in. You will see houses vandalized. You will see the grass and grounds dry. You will see the street sprinkled with ``For Sale'' signs, and nobody buys because the market has become so depressed. This crisis has roots in the subprime housing boom that went bust, and it would be unconscionable for us to simply bail out Wall Street while leaving these homeowners to fend for themselves. Everything I have been told, and I have talked to people in this business, here is what they tell me: It is more cost-effective to renegotiate a subprime loan and keep a family in a house than it is to foreclose and run the risks of what happens to that home on a depressed market as credit is drying up, as vandals loot it, as landscaping dries up, as more homes in the area become foreclosed upon; the way to go is to renegotiate these mortgages with the exiting homeowner wherever possible. I feel very strongly that should be the case. I don't know what I or any of us will do if we authorize this kind of expenditure and we find down the pike in my State that the rest of the year, 800,000 to 1 million Americans are being thrown out of their homes despite this form of rescue effort. Think of what it means, Mr. President, in your State. You vote for this, any other Senator votes for it, and these foreclosures continue to take place and individual families continue to be thrown out of their homes. It is not a tenable situation. I hope, if anybody is listening at all, that in the negotiating team, they will make a real effort to mandate in some way that subprime foreclosures be renegotiated, that families, wherever possible, who have an ability to pay, have that ability to pay met with a renegotiated loan. I have done this now in cases with families who were taken advantage of. We called the CEO of the bank, and the bank has seen that the loan was renegotiated, in one case in Los Angeles down to 2 percent. That is better than foreclosing and running the uncertainty of the sale of the asset in a very depressed housing market. These are my thoughts. Again, it is easy to come to the floor and give your thoughts. It is much more difficult to sit at that negotiating table. I once again thank those Senators on both sides of the aisle who really understand the nature of this crisis--that it isn't only Wall Street, that it does involve Main Street, and if there is a serious crash, it will hurt tens of millions of Americans, many of them in irreparable ways. So we must do what we must do, and we must do it prudently and carefully. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hear testimony on the nominations of Gracia M. Hillman, Donetta Davidson, Rosemary E. Rodriguez, and Gineen Bresso Beach to be members of the Election Assistance Commission. Individuals and organizations that wish to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact the Chief Clerk, Lynden Armstrong, at 202-224-7078. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to inform all Senators that on Friday, September 19, 2008, the Committee on Rules and Administration approved amendments to the U.S. Senate Internet Services Usage Rules and Policies. These regulations are effective immediately. The regulations were amended to accommodate Senate offices interested in utilizing social networking sites. I wish to emphasize that all Senate Web sites must be located in the senate.gov host domain, except for the exceptions specified in A3 of the regulations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the amended regulations printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I make these remarks on behalf of my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer. She and I are cosponsoring legislation, which I will send to the desk at the end of my remarks. On Friday, at 4:30 p.m., a Union Pacific freight train and a Metrolink commuter train, loaded with 225 commuters, leaving Los Angeles and traveling north through the San Fernando Valley, in the Chatsworth area, collided on a single track. The collision took place at about 40 miles an hour for each train. The engine of the Metrolink train was rammed two-thirds through the first car of the Metrolink train. Here it is. Here is the Union Pacific engine and this mess is the Metrolink engine and it rammed two-thirds through the first car. Thus far, 26 people are dead. Some were dismembered by the crash, some bodies had to be removed in a dismembered state from the train. There are 138 people in the hospital, 40 of them in critical condition, and more deaths could well take place. This accident happened because of a resistance in the railroad community in America to utilizing existing technology to produce a fail-safe control of trains to avoid colliding with each other and to avoid one train from crashing into the rear of another. Both of these have happened in the past. Yet today there is no requirement for a safe control of track and train. The House has passed a bill reauthorizing the Federal Railroad Administration. The Senate has passed a bill reauthorizing the Federal Railroad Administration. They both have provisions, although they are different, for safe train control in these bills. But nothing has happened. The bills have not been conferenced. This must stop. Let me point out for a minute how positive train control works. Every train's position is tracked through global positioning, which is new technology that can monitor its location and speed. These systems constantly watch for excessive speed, improperly aligned switches, whether trains are on the wrong track, unauthorized train movements, and whether trains have missed signals to slow or stop. Each train also has equipment on board that can take over from the engineer if the train doesn't comply with the safety signals. The system will override the engineer and automatically put on the brakes. These systems exist and are in use today. They are in place in the Chicago-Detroit corridor and in the Northeast corridor. But the railroad industry resists them. I believe rail in America has a very real future. California believes it has a very real future. As a matter of fact, in 5 weeks, California has on the ballot a $10 billion bond issue to create a high-speed rail spine down the center of California that runs from Sacramento all the way down to Los Angeles. Now, people aren't going to ride these trains unless they know they are safe, and we have an obligation, I believe, to provide that safety. I am sorry to have to say this, but southern California has the most high-risk track in America. The majority of Metrolink's 388 miles of track, which crosses six counties, believe it or not, is shared with freight trains. This is untenable. Let me ask a question: How can you put commuter trains, passenger trains, on the same track as freight trains going in opposite directions with nothing more than a couple of signals that can be missed, and have been missed, to avert disaster? Again, over the years, the railroad resisted, saying these systems are too expensive. Well, how expensive is the loss of human life? The cost of any system doesn't come close to the cost of the lives that were lost this past Friday and that will likely be lost in the future. To date, positive train control has been put to use only in limited areas, including, as I said, parts of the Northeast and Chicago and Detroit. Nine railroads in at least 16 States have these positive control projects, but California is not one of them. Why, I ask. It is critical, particularly when--given the element of human error, which we may well see in this instance--it may well have been a cell phone that was in use at the time of the accident by the engineer. Let me tell you what sort of hours this engineer works. He works 5 days a week, and it is an 11-hour day. It is a split shift of 15 hours. Let me explain. He is due at work at 6 in the morning. He works until late morning, and then he has 4 hours off but returns to work from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. That is an 11-hour day in an engine on high alert in major populated areas. He performs a critical function, and he does it on an 11-hour workday on a split shift. I think that is untenable. The NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, has pushed again and again for positive train control systems, particularly after a deadly crash in my own State in Orange County in 2002. Three people died and two hundred sixty were injured. In the Orange County crash, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that a Burlington Northern engineer and a conductor were talking to each other. They failed to see a yellow warning light telling them to slow down. I think that same thing has happened again. Their freight train slammed into a Metrolink commuter train that had stopped on the same track. Now, we know that positive, or safe, train control would prevent 40 to 60 accidents a year, 7 fatalities, and 55 injuries a year. So why hasn't it been put in place? I actually believe it is negligence, and I will even go as far to say I believe it is criminal negligence not to do so. The report also concluded that positive train control could have prevented a fatal collision in Graniteville, SC, in 2005. In this accident, a rail employee failed to properly align a track switch. As a result, several cars derailed, deadly chlorine gases escaped, and nine people died. Cost is used as the reason not to do this, but I ask: How can we afford not to do it, whatever the cost? How many accidents does it take? How many deaths does it take? How many injuries does it take? Experts estimate that the cost is about $2.3 billion to install safe, technological train controls on 100,000 miles of track around the United States--high priority track. Today, my colleague, Senator Boxer, and I are introducing legislation which takes the strongest parts of the House and Senate bills and beefs them up. This legislation would require positive safe train controls for major freight and passenger lines. By 2012, areas declared as high risk by the Department of Transportation must run with positive train control systems. Railroads would be required to develop plans to implement these controls within 1 year of enactment of the legislation. These plans must be submitted to the Secretary of Transportation also within 1 year of enactment. It sets a deadline of December 31, 2014, for safe rail control to be in place on all major freight and passenger lines in America. It would be mandatory, and it would require penalties for noncompliance, with fines of up to $100,000 per violation. Passenger rail will not succeed in this country unless public safety is guaranteed. Again, on Friday, these trains hit at 40 miles per hour. What happens when trains pile into each other at 120 miles per hour? I have asked the majority leader to include this in the continuing resolution. I don't know whether he will--I think it is a remote possibility--but I do believe we need to get this moving right now. Once again, look at this. When we know there is global positioning that can be in place to shut down the freight train and the passenger train before they run into each other and we do nothing about it, then I believe this body is also culpable and negligent. Mr. President, if I might, I send this legislation to the desk with a plea that it be enacted right away, with a plea that we get the planning moving, with a plea that we get 100,000 miles of high-priority track equipped with global positioning so this never again can happen in a high-priority passenger-freight train area where the trains are traveling on the same track. If we don't do it, it is going to happen again.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I make these remarks on behalf of my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer. She and I are cosponsoring legislation, which I will send to the desk at the end of my remarks. On Friday, at 4:30 p.m., a Union Pacific freight train and a Metrolink commuter train, loaded with 225 commuters, leaving Los Angeles and traveling north through the San Fernando Valley, in the Chatsworth area, collided on a single track. The collision took place at about 40 miles an hour for each train. The engine of the Metrolink train was rammed two-thirds through the first car of the Metrolink train. Here it is. Here is the Union Pacific engine and this mess is the Metrolink engine and it rammed two-thirds through the first car. Thus far, 26 people are dead. Some were dismembered by the crash, some bodies had to be removed in a dismembered state from the train. There are 138 people in the hospital, 40 of them in critical condition, and more deaths could well take place. This accident happened because of a resistance in the railroad community in America to utilizing existing technology to produce a fail-safe control of trains to avoid colliding with each other and to avoid one train from crashing into the rear of another. Both of these have happened in the past. Yet today there is no requirement for a safe control of track and train. The House has passed a bill reauthorizing the Federal Railroad Administration. The Senate has passed a bill reauthorizing the Federal Railroad Administration. They both have provisions, although they are different, for safe train control in these bills. But nothing has happened. The bills have not been conferenced. This must stop. Let me point out for a minute how positive train control works. Every train's position is tracked through global positioning, which is new technology that can monitor its location and speed. These systems constantly watch for excessive speed, improperly aligned switches, whether trains are on the wrong track, unauthorized train movements, and whether trains have missed signals to slow or stop. Each train also has equipment on board that can take over from the engineer if the train doesn't comply with the safety signals. The system will override the engineer and automatically put on the brakes. These systems exist and are in use today. They are in place in the Chicago-Detroit corridor and in the Northeast corridor. But the railroad industry resists them. I believe rail in America has a very real future. California believes it has a very real future. As a matter of fact, in 5 weeks, California has on the ballot a $10 billion bond issue to create a high-speed rail spine down the center of California that runs from Sacramento all the way down to Los Angeles. Now, people aren't going to ride these trains unless they know they are safe, and we have an obligation, I believe, to provide that safety. I am sorry to have to say this, but southern California has the most high-risk track in America. The majority of Metrolink's 388 miles of track, which crosses six counties, believe it or not, is shared with freight trains. This is untenable. Let me ask a question: How can you put commuter trains, passenger trains, on the same track as freight trains going in opposite directions with nothing more than a couple of signals that can be missed, and have been missed, to avert disaster? Again, over the years, the railroad resisted, saying these systems are too expensive. Well, how expensive is the loss of human life? The cost of any system doesn't come close to the cost of the lives that were lost this past Friday and that will likely be lost in the future. To date, positive train control has been put to use only in limited areas, including, as I said, parts of the Northeast and Chicago and Detroit. Nine railroads in at least 16 States have these positive control projects, but California is not one of them. Why, I ask. It is critical, particularly when--given the element of human error, which we may well see in this instance--it may well have been a cell phone that was in use at the time of the accident by the engineer. Let me tell you what sort of hours this engineer works. He works 5 days a week, and it is an 11-hour day. It is a split shift of 15 hours. Let me explain. He is due at work at 6 in the morning. He works until late morning, and then he has 4 hours off but returns to work from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. That is an 11-hour day in an engine on high alert in major populated areas. He performs a critical function, and he does it on an 11-hour workday on a split shift. I think that is untenable. The NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, has pushed again and again for positive train control systems, particularly after a deadly crash in my own State in Orange County in 2002. Three people died and two hundred sixty were injured. In the Orange County crash, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that a Burlington Northern engineer and a conductor were talking to each other. They failed to see a yellow warning light telling them to slow down. I think that same thing has happened again. Their freight train slammed into a Metrolink commuter train that had stopped on the same track. Now, we know that positive, or safe, train control would prevent 40 to 60 accidents a year, 7 fatalities, and 55 injuries a year. So why hasn't it been put in place? I actually believe it is negligence, and I will even go as far to say I believe it is criminal negligence not to do so. The report also concluded that positive train control could have prevented a fatal collision in Graniteville, SC, in 2005. In this accident, a rail employee failed to properly align a track switch. As a result, several cars derailed, deadly chlorine gases escaped, and nine people died. Cost is used as the reason not to do this, but I ask: How can we afford not to do it, whatever the cost? How many accidents does it take? How many deaths does it take? How many injuries does it take? Experts estimate that the cost is about $2.3 billion to install safe, technological train controls on 100,000 miles of track around the United States--high priority track. Today, my colleague, Senator Boxer, and I are introducing legislation which takes the strongest parts of the House and Senate bills and beefs them up. This legislation would require positive safe train controls for major freight and passenger lines. By 2012, areas declared as high risk by the Department of Transportation must run with positive train control systems. Railroads would be required to develop plans to implement these controls within 1 year of enactment of the legislation. These plans must be submitted to the Secretary of Transportation also within 1 year of enactment. It sets a deadline of December 31, 2014, for safe rail control to be in place on all major freight and passenger lines in America. It would be mandatory, and it would require penalties for noncompliance, with fines of up to $100,000 per violation. Passenger rail will not succeed in this country unless public safety is guaranteed. Again, on Friday, these trains hit at 40 miles per hour. What happens when trains pile into each other at 120 miles per hour? I have asked the majority leader to include this in the continuing resolution. I don't know whether he will--I think it is a remote possibility--but I do believe we need to get this moving right now. Once again, look at this. When we know there is global positioning that can be in place to shut down the freight train and the passenger train before they run into each other and we do nothing about it, then I believe this body is also culpable and negligent. Mr. President, if I might, I send this legislation to the desk with a plea that it be enacted right away, with a plea that we get the planning moving, with a plea that we get 100,000 miles of high-priority track equipped with global positioning so this never again can happen in a high-priority passenger-freight train area where the trains are traveling on the same track. If we don't do it, it is going to happen again.