Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 710, S. Res. 523.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2829 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, 38 years ago this week, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, a great environmentalist and a good friend of many of our colleagues who are still here, came to the Senate floor with a novel idea. He proposed one day each year to honor our planet, an occasion to rededicate ourselves to stewardship of the Earth and the fight against pollution. He called his idea Earth Day. When Senator Nelson proposed the first Earth Day in 1970, our country's environmental outlook was grim. Smog choked the air of Los Angeles, New York, and other great American cities; many communities dumped raw sewage and untreated industrial waste in our greatest rivers, including the Mississippi and the Illinois and the Hudson. Polluted air and fouled water weren't the only challenges troubling our country. We had endured a series of tragic assassinations of great leaders, we were torn over a war in Vietnam, and we had seen civil rights riots and antiwar demonstrations in our streets. The Nation was divided and, frankly, losing the self-confidence for which Americans have always been known. But Gaylord Nelson was an optimist. He believed that with imagination and dedication, despite all the problems going on in the world, we could attack at least one of our country's problems, and that was the problem of pollution. With the commitment of our people and the leadership from our Government, we could devise ways to clean up our rivers and our lakes and the air we breathe. He was right. Since 1970, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, we have greatly cut the amount of noxious substances in the air we breathe. Emissions of carbon monoxide have fallen by 50 percent since 1980, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, lead emissions are down 97 percent, and sulfur dioxide emissions have dropped by nearly 50 percent. Since 1972, when the first clean water legislation passed, we have set high standards for water cleanliness and given our cities and towns the resources they need to stop dumping untreated waste. Our great rivers--the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Hudson--are healthier today than they were 30 years ago. Now, this doesn't mean we don't have challenges with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. As a member of the environmental committee, I know some of the problems we have seen with this administration in terms of rollbacks of some of these great strides. Nevertheless, we all know things have improved with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act since Gaylord Nelson declared Earth Day. On Earth Day 2008, however, we confront a new environmental challenge. It is a challenge of equal and perhaps greater magnitude. I am talking here about global climate change. For several years, our country had a debate over whether climate change was real or some sort of hoax perpetuated by doomsayers. That debate is over. There is now an undeniable scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. Study after study demonstrates that global warming is real and that it is affecting us now. Early last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its latest report on the science of climate change. This report was produced by some 600 authors from over 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. This is a very cautious group of scientists with a very conservative process for meticulously reviewing the evidence and reaching their conclusions through consensus. What did they conclude? Well, they concluded that changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent. Last November, the IPCC issued a followup report. It concluded that ``warming of the climate system is unequivocal,'' based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures. It said that evidence from every continent shows dramatic changes in physical and biological systems, including melting of the permafrost, rising water temperatures, and changes in the habitat range of migratory animals. So how did this all come about? Well, certain types of gases--most notably carbon dioxide but also methane and nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and then absorb or trap the sun's heat as it bounces off the Earth's surface. The problem is that carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate quickly; it stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more, causing the Earth's temperatures to rise. This means that most of the carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s--as I look at our pages, Mr. President, I realize many of them were not even born when this carbon dioxide was released--well, that carbon dioxide is still in our atmosphere today. And it means that carbon dioxide produced today will still be in our atmosphere in 2050 and beyond. All of that carbon dioxide has been trapping heat in our atmosphere. Over time, it makes global temperatures rise. In turn, sea levels rise--both because the water expands as the oceans warm and because melting glaciers and icecaps add more water. Global warming is real, with enormous consequences for our world and for our economy. For example, here is a chart which shows the rising temperatures. Mr. President, 2006 was the hottest year ever in this country, capping a 9-year streak unprecedented in the historical record. The winter of 2006 was the warmest on record worldwide. Almost every State in our country is seeing higher temperatures. You can see what we have here, with the coldest being 1, the warmest being 112. And you can see for several of the States it was the record warmest, and for most of the States it was much above normal, as in the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey. Maybe you remember the year of 2006--it wasn't that long ago--and you can see how hot it truly was when you look at it from a worldwide perspective. It doesn't mean you won't have a year here or there that won't be normal, but when you look at the actual trend over the last decades, you see an increasing warming temperature. Worldwide, glaciers are rapidly melting. In fact, almost everything frozen on our Earth is melting. A few months ago, it was reported that glaciers in the European Alps will be all gone by the year 2050. Experts believe that in 25 years there won't be a single glacier left in Glacier National Park. So if people are planning a vacation to visit Glacier National Park to see the glaciers, they better do it soon because experts predict that in 125 years there won't be any left. Globally, sea levels have risen 4 to 10 inches over the past century. The frequency of extremely heavy rainfalls has increased throughout much of the United States. The impact is especially dire in Greenland and the Arctic region. The temperature changes there have been the greatest, resulting in widespread melting of glaciers, thinning of the polar icecap, and rising permafrost temperatures. You can see here in our picture that since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar icecap has melted away. There is the North Pole, and you see the Arctic sea boundary that we had in 1979, and now we have 20 percent melting of this icecap. Well, I saw this firsthand, Mr. President, when I visited Greenland last summer with my colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee. Greenland has been called the canary in the coal mine for climate change. They have seen vast changes. We talked to local residents, and there are still more dogs than residents--more sled dogs--but we talked to some of the local residents who said they can remember the days when there was ice in their front yards, and now they are growing potatoes. They have lost the size of Texas and Arizona combined into the sea from the icecap in Greenland. Other changes, such as the recent increase in the severity of hurricanes and other extreme or destructive weather events, are consistent with the kinds of changes scientists expect to occur on a warming planet. They are early indicators of even more dramatic climate shifts and economic damage that await us if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attack the problem of global warming. So here you have related economic losses, and these are, of course, from increased storms and wildfires. I think we all remember well the wildfires in California. I remember this well because during the same time the wildfires were raging in California, we had a hearing in our Environment Committee where we had the commission on disease control testify. We noticed, when we looked at the written testimony, it seemed kind of chopped up. It turned out it had been edited by the administration. Among other things, of the parts that were edited out was a part about the effect climate change would have on disease and the mortality rates in our country. There was actually a part edited out that said it would lead to more wildfires in the Western States, just as the wildfires were raging in California. So this is an example of the increased economic loss we have seen that are weather related in this country. You can see that from 1960 to 1969, and then you go up to 1988 to 1997, and of course I am sure you are going to see more now. We have had fires in Minnesota and floods in Minnesota, and the people of our State are starting to see this in a very different way. In our State, one economic loss that isn't one of these hurricanes or fires is the decreasing levels of Lake Superior. That will be surprising to people who think sea levels are rising because Greenland's ice sheet is melting. Why would the level of our Great Lakes be going lower? They are going lower because the ice is melting more quickly, so the water evaporates, and Lake Superior is now at its lowest level in 80 years. Now, you might think: Oh, Lake Superior is so cold, hardly anyone can go swimming anyway. Who cares? Well, it affects our economy in Minnesota because the barges are not able to come in. We have shipped something like 300 tons less, by my memory--we will have to correct the record if I am wrong--300 tons less of traffic because these barges cannot carry as much because the water level of Lake Superior is so low. By that example, this is truly an issue that has finally moved out of the science labs and the classrooms and the seminar rooms and has entered the everyday conversations of people in my State. I hear it from hunters across Minnesota, who notice how our valuable wetlands are changing. I have heard it from the heads of our snow mobile associations, who testified at a forum I had with our Governor on climate change in January, because they have seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fisherman because they have seen it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can't put their fish houses out as early as they would like. Just yesterday, USAToday had a story about the shrinking number of moose in northern Minnesota. Biologists think that global warming is affecting the habitat of these moose and making them more vulnerable to parasites, causing an incredible reduction in the number of moose. This is how real people in the real world are talking about this. They are worried about what is happening to their planet and the consequences that will have for all of us and our children and our grandchildren. So the question is, How will we respond in Washington? I am actually going to give a talk on this every single week, Mr. President, up to our debate on this bill in June, and I figured a good day to start was with Earth Day. But just to summarize--and I will go into more detail in other floor remarks I will make--how will Washington respond? In December, the Environment and Public Works Committee approved a landmark bipartisan bill to get our country moving in the fight against climate change. I thank my colleagues, Senators Warner and Lieberman, for their work on this legislation, and I thank Senator Boxer, the chairwoman of our committee, for her leadership in developing this bill and moving this bill through the committee. This legislation is visionary, but it is also practical. The bill would, for the first time, set mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions, on greenhouse gas emissions. It would establish a cap-and- trade system to use market forces so that the private sector can reduce greenhouse gas pollution in the most efficient way possible. And I can tell you, we have learned from experience. We did this with acid rain, and it was very successful. We have seen from what the European Union did what is good and bad, so we can learn from that experience and do, I would say, a better job in this country, if we can get this right. This legislation, in its first title, also contains my proposal, the bill I introduced with Senator Snowe, for a carbon counter, which is a national greenhouse gas registry, because you can't fix a problem if you can't measure it. Right now, we have 33 States off on their own starting a climate registry, which shows how absurd the situation is getting. They want to act because they are hearing from the people in their States. They know they can't wait, so they have started their own climate registry, instead of what makes sense, which is a Federal registry. And that is the first title of this bill. In a few weeks, we are going to bring the Lieberman-Warner bill to the floor, and we will have a chance to take a historic step on behalf of our country--in fact, on behalf of the entire world. As we prepare to consider this important legislation, there is something else we need to remember, and that is that global warming is, of course, a huge challenge, but it also presents opportunities for our country. It gives us the opportunity to develop new technologies, new jobs, and new industries. It gives us the opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which just hit another record of $117 per barrel this week. It gives us an opportunity to give consumers new, cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels. Whether it is an electric car, a hybrid car, or looking at what Brazil did with sugar cane, where they became energy independent, so they are not dependent on foreign oil, we know there are things we can do beyond what we are doing now with switchgrass, prairie grass, and all kinds of alternative technologies. But we have to set the standards as a government so we can encourage that kind of investment. We are not going to have a silver bullet here. As we like to say in Minnesota, we will have silver buckshot. We are going to have a number of proposals and alternatives, but we have to get moving by setting the standards. This is an opportunity that we must seize now. I am proud to celebrate Earth Day today, to join with my colleagues and millions of Americans in honoring our planet. But in the decades since Gaylord Nelson sponsored the first Earth Day, the occasion has often turned into a symbolic event, a day for teach-ins at our schools and rallies at our State capitols. I participated in them myself. But today, 38 years after its inception, we have the opportunity to return to the original spirit of Earth Day and celebrate the occasion with action, the action of investing in the farmers and the workers of this country instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast; the action of finally doing something to set that investment in place so we can develop the next generation of new technology, as we did when we said we were going to put a man on the Moon. It was great to put a man on the Moon and beat Russia--and look at what came out of that: the CAT scan and infrared technology. I remember in the 1970s my family went on camping trips with those little chocolate space sticks that came out of that trip to the Moon--hundreds and hundreds of new technological developments because our Nation put its mind on one goal. This is another time to take action. We will have a chance to pass this climate change legislation that is forward looking, that is bipartisan, and that is pragmatic. We will have the chance to answer the call of the people in this country--the little kids with the penguin buttons, the hunters of Minnesota who see the changes of their wetlands. They see the urgency of this issue. We have a chance to regain world leadership on the most pressing environmental challenge of our day. We will have a chance to take our place in a great tradition of environmental stewardship in the Senate and to renew the promise that Americans made on the first Earth Day, 38 years ago. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Illinois, thank you very much. I appreciate the time. If I go less than 5 minutes, I will give you back the rest of the time. Equal Pay Day Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues today, many of whom were here earlier--Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, and Senator McCaskill--in support of Equal Pay Day. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as chairwoman of the President's Status on Women Commission. In 1963, the Commission's findings enumerated rampant discrimination against women in the workplace: in hiring, in accommodations, and in pay. This was part of the larger catalyst to finally pass--that same year--the Equal Pay Act. It is a sad reality that still, 88 years after the 19th amendment gave women equal voting power and 45 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, it takes women 16 months to earn what men can earn in 12 months. In other words, today, Equal Pay Day, marks the day it takes women to finally catch up to where men were back in January. But Eleanor Roosevelt was a strong, wise woman, and she brought to that first Commission her personal philosophy that ``It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.'' That is why it is so important that the Senate take up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on the floor this week. We must light a candle to the pay discrimination women continue to experience across the country. This important legislation will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court ruling-- Ledbetter v. Goodyear--that significantly limited the rights of individuals to sue for gender-based pay discrimination. The facts that gave rise to Lilly Ledbetter's case are all too common today. Lilly Ledbetter was a hard worker, working at Goodyear Tire as a manager for 20 years. When she started at Goodyear, all the employees at the manager level started at the same pay. She knew she was getting the same pay as the men did. But early in her tenure as manager, the company went to another system. Payment records were kept confidential, and Lilly did not think to ask what her colleagues were making. She did not think to look at her pay raise and ask if men in the department were getting the same. As the years passed by, the pay differential between what she made and what the male managers were making just kept getting bigger. She only found out about it from an anonymous note from a coworker. At trial, she was able to prove discrimination. But the company appealed the jury's finding, and the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, decided that Lilly filed her charge too late. Essentially, they read the law to say that she would have had to file it within 180 days of Goodyear making its first discriminatory decision. Although this decision completely ignores the realities of the workplace--that employee records are kept confidential and that there is no way to know when it starts unless we require women to start the embarrassing practice of asking what men make--we can do what Eleanor Roosevelt says. We can bring the realities to the light. We cannot expect women to challenge practices they do not know are happening, and by passing this law we can start to give women those 4 months back-- those extra months it takes to allow them to catch up to their male colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Five minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of passing the bill that is on the Senate floor; that is, the SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill. When we look at the bill that is of the magnitude of the SAFETEA-LU bill and its extraordinary importance in our economy, there are bound to be some drafting errors and issues. I am glad we are taking the time to correct these errors so we can continue to strengthen our national infrastructure and our economy. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in getting this bill to the floor. This bill is a step in the right direction as this Congress focuses more and more attention on our national infrastructure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as well as future efforts, to strengthen our national infrastructure. The Presiding Officer, being a Senator from Colorado, knows and I know there is a new economy in the future. It is the energy economy. But if we are going to move forward the next century's economy, we cannot be stuck in the last century's transportation system. I believe when you invest in infrastructure, you invest in the American economy. Rebuilding Main Street means revitalizing Main Street. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion of Federal highway investment, it creates over 30,000 jobs. So when we rebuild our roads, we strengthen our economy. As you know, a bridge collapsed one day in the middle of Minnesota. It was something no one could ever believe would happen in the middle of our major Interstate Highway System. As I said that day, a bridge should not fall down in the middle of America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway, especially not one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State, and especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area, and especially not in my front yard. As you know, Mr. President, as you have seen, the area of that bridge was only 8 blocks from my house. Unfortunately, it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to put the issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national agenda, and it is long overdue. The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W bridge has raised many questions about the condition and safety of our roads and bridges. In fact, we just had a bridge that was similarly designed shut down in St. Cloud, MN, about an hour and a half away from the bridge that collapsed. It was designed by the same designer, with the same problem with the bent gussets. The investigation is still going on into the exact cause and triggering events that led to the collapse of the I-35W bridge. The fact a bridge closed down so near, and the State of Minnesota decided to replace that bridge rather than repair it, shows this is not an isolated incident. Critical investment in the maintenance and construction of our Nation's transportation is imperative. Strengthening and maintaining our national infrastructure must be a national priority. At the moment, our priorities are not in the right place. We spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, with no end in sight, but our bridges fall down in the middle of America. We have tax cuts for the top 1 percent, but it is getting harder and harder for the middle class to get by. We need to better prioritize our national spending. Our robust, well-maintained, up-to-date highway system is vital to the continued expansion of our economy. It is, in fact, an essential driver of our economic prosperity. As President Kennedy once said: Building a road or highway isn't pretty. But it's something that our economy needs to have. And nowhere is this truer than in rural America. In Minnesota, the relationship between highways and the economy is most obvious in our rural areas. Transportation is absolutely essential to their viability and to their vitality. Rural Minnesota is now in the midst of an economic revival that promises to grow even stronger. We are seeing this all over America with the energy revolution, whether it is wind or solar or geothermal or whether it is ethanol or biodiesel. As our Nation demands greater energy independence and security, the rural parts of our country are poised to benefit enormously with the further development of home-grown energy. I believe we need to be prepared to maximize the opportunities offered by this renewable energy revolution. It is only beginning to emerge, but it promises major economic and technological changes for our country. Already the development of wind farms and ethanol plants has rejuvenated many rural areas in our State. We are third in the country when it comes to wind energy. But at the same time, these wonderful new energies are placing new demands on our transportation infrastructure. Here is one example: Demand for ethanol has increased dramatically. This Congress has pushed it. We are now with corn ethanol, but we know we will also expand into cellulosic, switchgrass, prairie grass, and other forms of biomass. For the first 6 months of 2007, ethanol production in the United States totaled nearly 3 billion gallons--32 percent higher than the same period last year. Currently, there are 128 ethanol plants nationwide, with total annual production capacity nearing close to 7 billion gallons. An additional 85 plants are under construction. As we know, this is just the beginning. We look at places such as Brazil, which are completely energy independent because of what they have done with sugarcane. We know corn isn't the only answer. We will expand into other kinds of ethanol. But we do know this is going to place demands--demands we want to have--on our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Total ethanol production in the United States is projected to exceed 13 billion gallons per year by early 2009, if not sooner. What does that mean in terms of transportation? Well, this means an average square mile of land in southern Minnesota, which now generates the equivalent of 80 loaded semitrucks per year, could soon produce double that--160 loads of grain per year. As more homegrown energy is produced, rural roads and bridges will have greater demands placed on them, as will rural rail. I have had members of my own State of Minnesota--constituents--come up and show me these old rail ties that are breaking down. I have seen myself the bridges that are in need of shoulders. I have seen the highways that are in need of repair. Some of our roads in Minnesota are in such disrepair they have actually been letting them go to dirt. We are going the opposite because they do not have the money to repair them. The ethanol plant in Benson, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis hauling either corn, ethanol or other forms of biodiesel from their plant every week. This is a 45-million gallon ethanol facility. Their production falls around the middle of Minnesota's 16 ethanol plants. SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across southern Minnesota. I have visited the company. They basically started in a barn, and they are building these huge wind towers. The heavy trucks that bring the steel to the company put an understandable heavy burden on the roads they travel and are putting their durability to the test. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates truck freight in rural America is going to double--double--by the year 2020. The continuing trend toward greater reliance on trucking to support these industries raises concern about the wear and tear on rural roads and bridges. Many of these roads and bridges were built before this trend was evident. Whoever thought they would be carrying this huge wind tunnel? No one ever thought it would happen, but it does. They were not designed for this type of traffic. Much of the rural road network in the United States was constructed during an era of slower travel and lighter vehicles. Current traffic, which is heavier and wider, has accelerated the rate of deterioration and made these types of roads less serviceable. In many important grain-producing States, such as Minnesota, more than 40 percent of the major highway system is rated as being in less than fair condition. Our transportation systems need to support the development of these industries, so we need to look at the full spectrum of transportation options. I truly appreciate Senator Boxer's leadership, looking not just at truck travel, not just at roads but also at mass transportation and other ways we can transport our goods to market. With more than half our State of Minnesota's total population now living in the seven- county Twin Cities metro area, the need for more transportation options has become very clear to all of us. It is not just about the rural areas in our State. Increasing traffic congestion has become a major threat to Minnesota's quality of life and our prosperity, costing precious time and money for both commuters and businesses. There is enormous support in our State for something called Northstar rail, which would bring people basically from the Twin Cities to the area of St. Cloud--Big Lake, to be exact. St. Cloud is the area I explained where the bridge had been closed because of safety concerns. And if you drive that 94 Interstate right now, I can tell you, you waste so much time sitting in traffic you practically feel sick to your stomach if you are there in rush hour. We need that mass transit, and legislators and people who were originally completely opposed to this project are now standing up in front of the line because they know how important it is for their constituents. This is a case where I have to tell you the constituents were there before the elected officials and led the way to try to get this Northstar rail in. And because of the Federal help, it is now getting built. The bottom line for any business is you lose money when your people and your products get stuck in traffic, and you also lose the ability to attract topnotch, talented workers if they must contend with aggravating and time-consuming traffic jams. To combat this threat, we must commit to broadening our transportation options, developing the right mix of multimodal solutions to serve our emerging needs, while maintaining our existing systems and highways. This mix, of course, includes not just rail but rapid bus transit, high-occupancy toll lanes, and anything we can do to try to move the people to the places they need to go. Our Nation has faced this challenge before, a half century ago, and we succeeded in building a new modern transportation system for a new modern economy. At the heart of it all was the interstate highway system. In his 1963 memoir, ``Mandate for Change 1953-1956,'' President Eisenhower famously said this of transportation: More than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of America. Its impact on the American economy--the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up--was beyond calculation. He was right. It is our responsibility to restore Eisenhower's vision of a transportation infrastructure that works for all of America. I can tell you this firsthand, from my heart, having seen what happens when you don't invest as you are supposed to; having seen a major bridge fall down one day in the middle of America; having seen the promise in the rural parts of our State of the new energy revolution but then hearing how they can't get their goods to market because they have a bunch of single-road highways, when they have trucks that are trying to bring wind towers in, when they are trying to be part of the solution to this energy crisis. It is our responsibility to restore that vision that Eisenhower had-- to build this transportation infrastructure in our country. That is why I am so proud to support Senator Boxer and her work on this bill, and I hope our colleagues will support this bill and that we get this bill passed for the good of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask the Senator, how long has she been trying to get this bill through? I know she has been waiting. I know it has been months.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It seems to me, when there is so much bipartisan support, the other side of the aisle would try to advance this bill. I know in our State we have had this tragedy. They see this not only as you talk about it--as a way to figure out, do an analysis of what we really need to meet our transportation needs but they also need it as investment. As you know, we were unable, on the stimulus package, to get some of the things we wanted on the Democratic side, so we did get the check in the mail to people. But long after those rebate checks are cashed, we need a long-term investment strategy in this country that invests in jobs. I thank Senator Boxer for bringing up that piece of the bill. I was very focused on the nuts and bolts on the roads, the wear and tear on the roads that we all think about when driving on the highway, but we also have to think about this as an investment strategy. I thank her for bringing out that important point.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the housing market crisis. I am grateful for the bipartisan work of Majority Leader Reid, Republican Leader McConnell, and Senators Dodd and Shelby. I am hopeful that we can finally pass legislation that gives our neighborhoods and middle-class families solutions to address the subprime and foreclosure crisis that has already been affecting the economy not only in my State but across the country. For the past year and a half, we have been hearing all about this subprime mortgage crisis. I think many people not facing foreclosure-- and that is most of us--have had this view: It doesn't affect me. I pay my mortgage. I don't have a subprime or adjustable rate mortgage, and I am dealing with a responsible mortgage lender. The truth is that none of us can escape the impact any longer. The housing crisis is now affecting every homeowner in the country and every would-be homeowner. It is dragging down our entire overall economy. It is not just in the urban areas. In our State, the foreclosure rate has doubled in the rural areas and, in fact, the two counties with the highest foreclosure rates are suburban counties bordering a rural area. I am a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and just this morning Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before our committee about the state of the economy, the state of housing, about our financial markets, and about what happened with Bear Stearns. He testified this morning that the housing market is at the root of our housing crisis, and until Congress addresses this crisis, our economy will not be on sure footing. In January, with record speed, Congress enacted an immediate and temporary fiscal stimulus package. Americans will start getting their checks in just a few weeks. We have to have solutions in this country to our economic troubles that go far beyond the day that these rebate checks are sent. I believe we have to have a long-term energy plan, and we need to put into place a health care plan that makes health care more affordable and more fiscally responsible. Since then, it has become very clear that this stimulus package will not be enough to address the deep-seated problems that have been developing over several years in our housing and financial markets. Home ownership has always been considered a basic part of the American dream. But in the last few years, the ``dream'' has changed in ways that our parents would not even recognize. A decade ago, just 5 percent of mortgage loan originations were subprime--meaning that they were made to borrowers who would not qualify for regular mortgages. By 2005, it was 20 percent of the mortgages that were subprime. This opened the dream of home ownership to millions of people but also greatly increased the risk to our system. In Minnesota, in 2000, there were 8,347 subprime mortgages issued. By 2005, it had increased more than fivefold to more than 47,000 subprime mortgages. In addition, adjustable rate mortgages now make up a much larger share of the market than they did 10 years ago. Many people took out these loans during a period of low interest rates. But when interest rates went up, their mortgage payments adjusted upward and they found they were unable to make their monthly payments. We met some of these people in Minnesota, people who had looked for a mortgage and, because home values were so high, got a subprime mortgage, understood that the rate would go up but were under the misimpression that, in fact, there was a cap or that it would go up a few hundred dollars, and they saw, in fact, in some cases a doubling of their mortgage payments. As a result, we have had a wave of home foreclosures that started in 2006 and continues today. During 2007, nearly 1.3 million homes became subject to foreclosure--a huge increase from 2005. What started as a foreclosure crisis is now having ripple effects--or more like a tsunami wave--across the entire economy. It is no longer just a foreclosure crisis. It is a housing market crisis, it is a credit crisis, and it is an economic crisis. It affects everyone who wants to borrow money, whether it is for a house, a car, a college education, or a small business. It affects you even if you make your mortgage payment on time every month and even if you have already paid off your mortgage. The rise in delinquencies and foreclosures--coupled with the credit squeeze that has made it harder for many buyers to obtain a mortgage-- has resulted in an excess of houses on the market, and that has, in turn, depressed home prices. Just last week, a report showed that home prices in the Twin Cities of Minnesota have fallen by nearly 11 percent in the last year--one of the sharpest drops in the country. Last fall, the Joint Economic Committee issued a report on the housing crisis and its impact on the broader economy. The findings are troubling. The report estimates that, by 2009, 2 million foreclosures will occur; $71 billion in housing wealth will be directly destroyed because a foreclosure reduces the value of the house and the value of the homes around it; another $32 billion in housing wealth for other homeowners will be destroyed because each foreclosure brings down the price of houses generally. The most poignant example of this would be a year or so ago in some of our urban neighborhoods where you started seeing foreclosures, and you would see a sign and people may not want to move into those neighborhoods. Now we are seeing it statewide, and we are seeing the effect it has on reducing home values in general. State and local governments will lose more than $917 billion in property tax revenue because of lower home values. By one estimate, 10 percent of all homeowners--or 8.8 million people--have a mortgage that is at least as much or more than their home is currently worth; that is, 10 percent of all homeowners have a mortgage that is worth at least as much or more than their home is currently worth. If home values were to fall 20 percent from their peak, even more--13.3 million--would be living in homes worth less than their mortgages. For the first time since the Federal Reserve started tracking the data in 1945, the amount of debt tied up in American homes now exceeds the equity that homeowners have built up--with home equity slipping below 48 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007. But you don't have a read a congressional report or go to our hearing and sit through the testimony to see how this ripple effect is touching everyday consumers. Last Tuesday, the Conference Board, a business research group, reported that consumer confidence fell to the lowest level in 5 years--just before the Iraq invasion. In the past couple of weeks, many Minnesotans just got their annual county property tax statements, and they were shocked to see that even the county values their homes at thousands of dollars less than last year. You might think all of this would be good for first-time home buyers, that they would be a beneficiary because the amount of money and the values are going down. But many of these first-time home buyers, who may not have much credit themselves or much money in the bank, find that just as some bargains are coming on the market, the banks are raising rates and tightening their lending standards, making it harder and harder for ordinary families to qualify for a loan. We don't have to sit on the sidelines and watch as this housing crisis eats away at our finances and paralyzes our economy. We need to take steps to help homeowners and home buyers, and we can. I hope this is done on a bipartisan basis. I had a reporter run after me, saying: Majority Leader Reid just said we are going to work together on this--Democrats and Republicans. I said: It is true. We want to get it done. He said: OK. Thank you. I think people are surprised that when we have an enormous crisis like this, Congress must work together to get things done. What do we need to do? First, we need to give first-time home buyers a fighting chance to get into the housing market--and create some demand. I have cosponsored the First-Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act. Other cosponsors are Debbie Stabenow, Joe Lieberman, and Gordon Smith. I thank Senator Stabenow for her great leadership on this bill and this issue. In fact, before I was even in the Senate, I called her to get some good ideas for first-time home buyers because I was hearing all over our State that because of the value of homes, it was getting harder for first-time home buyers to get a tax credit. We have a State fair, as the Presiding Officer has in Missouri, and our booth was a home. We designed it like a house and talked about how important it was for Senator Stabenow's idea--for a first-time home buyers' tax credit. This bipartisan legislation would create a tax credit of $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples, if they have qualifying incomes, to help make a downpayment on a first house. We estimate that this credit would help more than 15 million people close the deal on their first home over the next 7 years. Second, we need to expand financing opportunities for homeowners caught in the credit squeeze. I am hoping the Senate is able to finally pass legislation that gives State and local housing finance agencies the ability to issue bonds to raise money to refinance subprime mortgages that are in trouble and to expand the ability of the Federal Housing Administration to help homeowners rework their mortgages--rework that many lenders are unwilling or unable to do because of the broader economic crisis. Third, we need to make sure the foreclosure wave doesn't catch even more consumers who got into mortgages they didn't understand and should not have signed. I was thinking today at our hearing, when Senator Kennedy was speaking, that we have seen broken Government across this economy because of, in fact, the decision by this administration and others not to watch what was going on, not to put the resources into things-- whether it is toxic toys or tainted dog food. Well, these faulty and false and fraudulent financial offerings are a piece of this as well. By really being off the job and not watching over things and not seeing this crisis, we got to the point where we are. Now we know where we are. We know we have to work with the financial industry, but we also have to look, as we talked about today, at changes in our regulatory agencies for more oversight, particularly changes for these financial offerings. We need to provide the resources for preforeclosure counseling so that homeowners do not get into a financial crisis in the first place. We need to improve and simplify disclosure in mortgage documents. Anyone who signs a mortgage remembers how thick they are. Luckily, when I signed my first mortgage at home before I got married--I still remember sitting at that table trying to figure it out--I went through a good mortgage loan person and someone I trusted, and I got a regular mortgage. So many people do not understand what they are signing. They know they have a teaser rate, but they think it will only go up a little. So why can we not have a 1- or 2-page summary that at least explains how high it can go, what the cap is, what they will be facing in their monthly payments if certain changes are made. We also have to have some skin in the game for these lenders. They should be held to the same fiduciary duty as banks. The banks have long been advocating for this so we can make sure the homeowners are able to pay the mortgage, not just the first year but in the years down the road. The truth is these lending documents have gotten so complicated with new gimmicks and provisions that no one can understand them and certainly not a young family just coming on the market. We must work together if we are going to turn around the housing market and our economy. Together, we can bring some stability to our market. We can make the market work more effectively for homeowners and home buyers and put a more solid foundation under our shaky economy. This is going to take more than just looking at this housing crisis. It obviously is going to take more fiscal responsibility with Government, something I know the Presiding Officer has focused on very much, and I have. It is going to take talking about how we pay for things. It is going to take better regulation of these financial markets. As Chairman Bernanke said today, in fact, this subprime crisis is at the root of the problem, and that is what we need to focus on this week. Home ownership is at the center of the American dream. In the last couple of years, it has become a nightmare, or at least a troubled dream for way too many middle-class families. We cannot sit idly by or, worse, become paralyzed by the size of the problem. It is now time to act. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nelson- Snowe-Klobuchar amendment to S. 2636. I commend the good work of my colleague, Senator Nelson, that we have done on the bill as a whole, with Senator Pryor's leadership. The three of us as members of the Consumer Subcommittee have worked together to make this as strong a bill as possible. I especially applaud Senator Nelson's efforts to make sure the strong third party testing requirements were included in this bill. As we have seen over and over again in the past year with the issuance of each new recall, independent testing plays a critical role in ensuring that the products on our shores and in our stores are safe. So I commend Senator Nelson for his good work in making sure independent third party testing will now be done using a more systematic approach under the bill. The amendment we are sponsoring that will be brought to the Senate floor today would further strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act by addressing very real dangers that infants and toddlers face with durable goods. To clarify, when you hear the words ``durable goods,'' what does than mean in a mom's or parent's or kid's life? Well, durable goods are nursery products that are those products that no new parent can go without: cribs, car seats and strollers and high chairs, the most basic of all children's products. Unfortunately, what we have seen in recent years, in this past year in particular, is that these nursery products are leading to the most severe and the greatest number of product-related injuries for children. In 2007, 48 percent, almost half, of nursery product recalls were initiated because the use of the product has led to some type of child injury or even death. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 64,000 children, 64,000 children under the age of 5 were treated in emergency rooms across the country for injuries associated with nursery products in 2003, at a cost of $2.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion. This figure has certainly risen over the last 5 years. And even more tragically, more than 50 children under the age of 5 have died since that time in incidents associated with nursery products. I would like to take a moment and talk about one of the too many children who died tragically as a result of a defective crib, and that is 16-month-old Daniel Keysar. In May of 1998, little Danny was strangled to death in his licensed childcare facility when a Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed trapping his neck in the V of the rail. Danny was the fifth child to die while sleeping in the Playskool Travel-Lite crib from 1990 to 1997. More than 1.5 million portable cribs with similar dangerous designs were manufactured. A total of 16 children have been killed by this type of crib. This is just a crib, a crib that you would put up in your house, and that many children have died in. And while these cribs were all eventually recalled, in 2007, we saw the largest recall of cribs in our Nation's history. You can see right here this is one of the more than 1 million cribs that were recalled last year; 1 million cribs recalled in 2007. But these cribs never should have been brought to the market in the first place. It is not just cribs. Last year, when recalling the Evenflo Embrace infant car seat, the Consumer Product Safety Commission revealed that 160 infants were injured as a result of using this product. Many of these injuries were quite severe, ranging from skull fractures to concussions to lacerations. Let me be clear: 160 babies were seriously hurt by a product that their parents bought for the sole intention of keeping them safe. That is why you get a car seat. I still remember. My daughter is 12, and I would never admit she had ever been in a car seat, but we all buy car seats to keep our kids safe. Just to think, for 160 households, it was the car seat that injured their baby. It is clear we must strengthen our safety standards and make them stronger for nursery products. Right now the safety of the Nation's nursery products depends on a system of voluntary standards. And while voluntary standards are a good first step, we have seen over and over again that they are not enough. The amendment Senators Nelson, Snowe, and I are offering would direct the CPSC to evaluate and revamp these safety standards and give them the force of law. It is telling the CPSC, you have to do your job. Revamp these standards and make them better. This amendment directs the CPSC to work with consumer groups, child product manufacturers and engineers and safety experts to examine and assess the effectiveness of our current system of voluntary safety standards for nursery products. We had voluntary guidelines for lead and look where that got us. The amendment then directs the CPSC to issue regulations aimed at reducing injuries and deaths from these kinds of nursery products. This amendment is not controversial. Strengthening safety standards for nursery products is a winning proposition for everyone. This language was included in the House-passed bill by an overwhelming majority. It is my understanding that this amendment will be adopted in the manager's package. I thank Senators Pryor and Stevens for accepting this amendment. I thank the Senate for their support for the amendment I offered with Senator Menendez to ban industry trade travel. Industries the Consumer Product Safety Commission is supposed to be regulating should not be paying for Consumer Product Safety Commission personnel to fly all around the world. I was glad we had bipartisan support for our amendment. We look forward to working on this bill through the day and getting this bill passed. It is incredibly important, the most sweeping consumer product safety reform in 16 years.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the bill that is pending on the floor. I am very pleased this bill is advancing, the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill, that involves so many important provisions. But in my State, I will tell you this: We are very focused on the provision dealing with the toxic toys. I can tell you, after being in the Senate for only a year, it is truly an inspiration to see we were able to get a bill through our committee--thanks to the leadership of Senator Pryor and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--and get it to the floor. The reason it is so important in our State is we had a little boy who died, a 4-year-old boy who swallowed a charm that was given to him with a pair of tennis shoes. He did not die from choking on the charm. He did not die from his airway being blocked. He died when the lead went into his bloodstream day after day after day. When that charm was tested, it was 99 percent lead. It was from China. His own blood, when he died, had three times the normal amount of lead. It is a very sad story. But it is some solace to the people in our State that after only being here a year, and as a member of the Commerce Committee, I was able to work to make sure we have a Federal lead standard in this bill. It is rewarding, indeed, that it looks like today we may be completing our work. I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you have seen this in Ohio. We have seen toy after toy recalled in this country. In fact, 29 million toys--look at this chart--were recalled in 2007 alone. Look at this: This is a calendar of the various dates with the various toys that were recalled in the year 2007 and into January and February of 2008. We saw the Thomas the Trains that were recalled. We saw Dora the Explorer, we saw SpongeBob SquarePants being recalled--these toys that are so near and dear to people's hearts. You get a sense of it with the calendar, but this list is an actual documentation of all the toys that have been recalled in the last year and 3 months. You have things such as necklaces, Rachael Rose Kidz rings. You have the trains, the Cub Scout badges, ugly teeth that you put in your mouth for Halloween, of course, the Aqua Dots that morphed into the date rape drug. You can go on and on and on. I think it is stunning at this time in our history we would still have something such as this happening. I think many people thought in the 1970s--when we got our act together in this country about consumer protection and we strengthened the laws and we realized kids were dying from problems, with everything from cribs to dangerous toys, to flammable pajamas--this country got its act together. Well, look what happened instead. We have seen a record number of imports coming in from other countries that do not have the safety standards we do. This was brought home to us--and it was more than toy recalls and numbers--when a few days ago Senator Pryor and I met with the families of two children who almost died from toxic toys. The first is Jacob--or Jack, as his family knows him. His mother Shelby came from Arkansas to the Capitol. She told her story in a way I will never do justice to--a very touching story--where she talked about the fear she had on this day. It was a normal day. Any parent can imagine this. You start out. You are in the kitchen. It was October 30, 2007. Jack was 20 months old at the time. What happened was, his older sister had these Aqua Dots that you put in water and they transform into an animal or something like that. He swallowed some of them. All of a sudden, this little boy was standing there, throwing up and stumbling around. She immediately took him to Arkansas Children's Hospital, where he was treated by a doctor, Dr. Jaeger. Suddenly, this little boy, Jacob--Jack--went into a coma. They had no idea what caused it. Kids swallow things, as we know, all the time. They will swallow a penny. They will swallow something. It is not a good thing, but they do not immediately go into a coma. He was in a coma for about 6 hours. They thought they were going to lose him because no one could figure out what happened. Well, she said, just like this, he came out of the coma and he was fine. The doctor was in shock. The doctor said if he had not been there, he would not have even believed it had happened. So they got him home. No one figured out what happened. She got on the Web site herself--the mom did--trying to figure out what was in Aqua Dots. She called the company. Everyone was trying to figure it out. Finally, they did some testing in the next few days, and they found out the coating that was put on these particular Aqua Dots metabolized into a chemical compound known as the date rape drug. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you we have handled cases involving date rape drugs. This is not a little thing. These are used to knock people out for hours so crimes can occur, and they take vulnerable victims and try to put them to sleep. That is what happened with these Aqua Dots. These simple little toys--that are supposed to be pet pals--morphed into a date rape drug right in this little boy's stomach. So she came and told us this story. On November 7, Spin Master--the company that makes Aqua Dots-- recalled the product. The chemical that is in these little beads could cause children--they figured out--to become comatose, develop respiratory depression or have seizures. Luckily, this little boy survived. This is what we were dealing with. Then, another family came and talked to Senator Pryor and me. This is Colton, also a little boy. He is a little older than Jacob. Their family lives in Oregon. The mom told us this story: In 2003, when Colton was only 4 years old, he swallowed a little trinket they had gotten out of a gumball machine. It was later determined--they couldn't figure out why he was so sick. He was having trouble. He was not himself. They took him to the doctor. They figured out he swallowed this lead. They got the toy out of him, but they figured out later that this toy was 39 percent lead. His lead levels-- this little boy, Colton--at the time were considered fatal, but he survived. This led, actually, to the recall of 150 million pieces of gumball machine jewelry. Now, this is not that different from the story I told you about Jarnell. This mom told me when we met earlier in the week that when she heard about Jarnell, it all came back to her. She spent the last 2 years trying to be an advocate, all by herself--Colton's mom--to get something done on this, and then imagine how she felt when she read that this little boy, Jarnell, in Indianapolis had died from exactly the same kind of charm, these lead charms; something like that went into his system. The one Jarnell had was 99 percent lead. Luckily for little Colton, the piece he had was only 39 percent lead. But now, even today, Colton's lead levels, even when he is much older, are at 17. They are not where they should be, and they are constantly on alert for what might go wrong. If he has a growth spurt or if he breaks his bones, his lead levels will increase, and they don't know the effect that will have. We all know it is very dangerous, the brain damage in children and other things it does. The other thing about these charms--and we are very focused on little kids swallowing them, but the other thing about them is that necklaces can also affect teenage girls because they put these necklaces on, and then they are sitting in class or they are with their friends, and they chew on them. I have seen little girls actually do this--teenage girls. They are cheaper jewelry charms, and they start to chew on them. Well, in January 2007, 114,000 necklaces were recalled because the pendants contained high levels of lead, these kinds of pendants that continue to be recalled throughout this year. Another example: In February of 2007, almost 300,000 Rachael Rose rings, which were worn by very young kids who wanted to try on a ring and have a ring on, were recalled. In June of 2007, we had the Thomas & Friends, which was the first batch of 1.5 million recalls. This story is one that is worth noting. The Presiding Officer will be interested in this one. These were toys that were manufactured and painted in China. The RC2 Company, when they found out about it, called for a recall. They were very embarrassed about the safety record. They appropriately apologized to their customers, saying they would make every effort to ensure this wouldn't happen again, and to help encourage customer loyalty and to prompt customers to return the trains, they actually said: You know what, we will give you a bonus gift. We are going to replace the toys, and we will send you a bonus gift if you send in your toys that have been recalled. So all of these parents sent in their recalled toys. As you can imagine, they are trying to figure out which toy is recalled and which isn't. Is it the caboose or the boxcar? They end up sending it back to get this bonus gift. Guess what. This bonus gift backfired in a big way. It was discovered that 2,000 of these bonus gift items contained lead paint levels 4 times higher than legally allowed, leaving the parents of these toddlers to deal with what we call the double recall. Then, in August 2007, almost 1 million Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer toys were recalled by Fisher-Price. In October 2007, 1,600,000 Cub Scout badges were recalled for extremely high lead levels. Just this last Halloween, just a few days before Halloween, 43,000 Ugly Teeth toys were recalled that kids put in their mouths for Halloween. This is just what I call the ``greatest hit list.'' There were over 9 million toys recalled by hundreds of different companies in 2007, with a total of 27 million toys recalled. Yet we have known about this danger for 30 years. That is what is so shocking about this. As we advance in this country with technology, with BlackBerrys and cell phones, it is unbelievable that we would be stepping back. The science is clear. It is an undisputed fact that lead poisons children. It should not have taken us this long to take lead out of the hands of our children, out of their mouths. It is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's job to do this. When they started seeing all of these imports coming in, they should have done something. They should have come to Congress and said: We think we see a problem here. We are going to need more people. We are going to need more toy inspectors. It was Congress that had to take the lead to get this moving. The burden should not fall on parents or kids to tell if a toy train is coated with lead paint. Who is going to be able to figure that out? You figure that if you buy a toy from a reputable store, it is going to be OK. I think it is shocking for most parents when they realize there has never been a mandatory ban on lead in kids' toys in this country--never. Until this legislation, there has never been a mandatory ban. In response to a series of letters I wrote to Chairwoman Nord in August about the dangers of lead in children's products, the Chairwoman responded on September 11. In this letter, Chairwoman Nord acknowledged that: The CPSC does not have the authority to ban lead in all children's products without considering exposures and risks on a product-by-product basis. Chairwoman Nord went on to say that were the CPSC--the Consumer Product Safety Commission--to attempt banning lead in all children's products: It would likely take several years and millions of dollars in staff and other resources. This response makes it clear that Congress cannot wait for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to act. They have had years. They have known this was increasing, these imports and what was going on for years, and they didn't act. That is why we need this bill. According to them, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they didn't have the tools or the resources to do their job. Now, it would have been nice if they had come earlier than this year to act, but they didn't have the tools on the books. So that is what this bill is about. To talk a little bit more about the specifics, this legislation effectively bans lead in all children's products by classifying lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. This was a part of the bill that incorporates the bill we wrote out of our office. The reason I, of course, was so focused on this was because of the fact that this little boy died in our State. The bill sets a ceiling for a trace level of allowable lead at .03 percent of the total weight of a part of children's products, or 300 parts per million. Some States across the country have put these in because of inaction by the Federal Government. Some are set at .04. California has .04 for toys and .02 for jewelry. We decided the best way to do this is to set it at .03 for the first year, a year after the bill takes effect, and then, actually within a few years, go down to .01 because the science supports that we should be able to get it down to .01 percent of the total weight of kids' toys for lead. The idea is that, in fact, as some of the pediatrician groups believe, we can do this and we can maybe go lower than that, to trace levels of lead, and we allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to do a rulemaking so that if they would like, and the science supports it, they can actually go down to zero or go lower if they would like. But these are trace levels of lead that are actually more aggressive than you see in some of the States. The legislation also sets an even lower threshold for paint. Under this bill, the allowable level of lead paint would drop immediately to 90 parts per million. This lower threshold is critical because science has shown that as children put products in their mouths, it is the painted coatings which are the most easily accessible to kids. Every parent of a toddler knows this to be true. On these lead-tainted Thomas trains, you can always see, on the ones I have seen that have been brought into my office by parents who are worried, those little teeth marks of kids who are chewing on these toys. I will tell my colleagues that people say: Well, what is the Consumer Product Safety Commission doing now? They have a voluntary standard at .06. So the standard is higher. The key is that it is voluntary, so they have to call and negotiate with the companies if they want to do a recall. A lot of our retailers in Minnesota, including Target and Toys ``R'' Us, have been very frustrated by this because they are negotiating with the manufacturer, so it is not clear. They want to get the products off their shelves, but they haven't been recalled yet. So this makes it much simpler because it is a mandatory Federal lead standard. The other part of the bill that came out of a bill we drafted and which is very important to me--and I think it comes from being a mom, and it is practical--is making it easier when there is a recall to be able to identify the toys. Now, when I talk to my friends, they say: What am I supposed to do? I hear about this recall. I go to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Web site. I can't tell which caboose, which train. Is it the boxcars? Is it the caboose? Which brunette Barbie? Which blond Barbie? Big surprise: They don't keep the packaging. I don't think anyone but my mother-in-law keeps packaging for toys, because she saves everything. What our bill does is basically says the batch numbers, when practical, should be on the toys. They won't be on Pick-Up Sticks, obviously, but they can be on the foot of a Barbie or on the bottom of these little toys which actually say on the bottom ``caboose'' or ``boxcar,'' and there can be a batch number. So it will be easier for parents to identify which toy they can get out of their kid's box. We also have put in this bill a requirement that the numbers be on the actual packaging. Even though parents will throw the packaging away, we think that is important because the mom-and-pop retail stores, the little retail stores, and also the Internet--people will still have the packaging. So Target, Toys ``R'' Us, and Wal-Mart are going to be able to put into their computer system when a toy is recalled immediately so you can't sell it through the line. That is not as easy for smaller stores. It may not be as easy for a little drugstore or grocery store and also certainly not easy for people buying on eBay or selling on eBay. So we also require that the batch numbers be on the packaging. As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated since 1990. That is why what Senator Pryor has done as the chair of the consumer subcommittee--and I am proud to be a member of that subcommittee and to have worked with him on this bill--is so significant. You think about how the marketplace has changed in these 16 years and what we have seen in the growth for imports from countries that don't have our same standards. Yet, at the same time, the Commission is a shadow of its former self. Although the number of imports has tripled-- tripled--in recent years and the number of recalls, as I noted earlier, has been increasing by the millions, the number of Commission staff and inspectors at the Consumer Product Safety Commission has dropped by more than half, falling from a high in 1980--as my colleagues can see right here--falling from a high of 978 to 393 today. Look at that change. Maybe that wouldn't have mattered if we suddenly had fewer toys in this country, maybe if we had a third of the imports coming in. In fact, we have seen a tripling of imports from countries that do not have the same safety standards as we do. In total, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has only about 100 field investigators and compliance personnel nationwide. What this legislation does--and we already started, actually, back in December, where we gave the Consumer Product Safety Commission, through our omnibus budget bill, some funds to hire more inspectors--this legislation more than doubles the Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget so that they can get those toy inspectors on board. This bill provides some needed help to increase the inspection, the research, and regulation staff. It puts 50 more staff at U.S. ports of entry in the next 2 years. Some were announced just yesterday as a result of the work of this Congress. Not only does this bill give the necessary funding and staff to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but it gives the Commission the ability to enforce violations of consumer product safety laws. This bill finally makes it criminal--criminal--to sell recalled products. We have seen too many headlines this year to sit around and think this problem is going to solve itself. As a Senator, I feel strongly that it is important to take this step to protect the safety of our children. When I think about that little 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota and I think about the children all over this country who have been hurt and the parents who have lost sleep just trying to figure out if what they are doing is right or what are they going to buy their kids for Christmas or what are they going to do about this problem--they shouldn't be thinking about those things in this day and age. We can beef up this agency that has been languishing for years. We can put the rules in place and make it easier for them to do their jobs. So this isn't just a matter of banning lead in children's toys. This bill is a matter of implementing consumer safety laws and regulations. It is a matter of protecting kids from more harmful products. It is a matter of helping parents to understand what to do when something has been recalled. It is a matter of keeping customers informed and safe when purchasing products in the United States. And it is a matter of bringing the CPSC back into the 21st century. As I said, all of the toys were overseen by a guy named Bob, with a back office full of toys. He would be dropping them to see what happened and what didn't. He is retired now. We are moving into the next century. This is a matter of getting serious about consumer safety. We have to say Congress cares about the families in this country. People get mad about the Congress because it takes so long to get things done. This is a bread-and-butter bill, about helping families. With the bipartisan help of our Senate colleagues, we can pass this meaningful bill that gives the CPSC the tools they need to do their job, and it also sets clear and unequivocal standards of what is safe and what is not in this country. The current system has been broken by years of neglect, by an agency that hasn't told the truth about its problems, and by an administration that has closed its eyes to what has been going on. This Congress can fix this. The Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act represents some of the most sweeping reforms we have seen in 16 years for consumer safety. The Wall Street Journal said: The Consumer Product Safety Act is the most significant consumer safety legislation in a generation. We can pass this legislation today, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to thank the many Senators and staff who worked on this sweeping consumer protection reform. This is going to mean so much for so many children across this country. It is going to make a difference, and we are really never going to know it. I can tell you from the parents I have met who have had to deal with their kids ingesting Aqua Dot that morphed into a date-rape drug, or another whose child swallowed a charm that was 39-percent lead, those mothers came to the Capitol because they did not want it to happen to anyone else. Today, we told them we are listening to them, and we are making a difference in the lives of families throughout the country. The difference started with the Commerce Committee and the very good staff we have on that committee. Before I acknowledge them, I wish to acknowledge my own staff. I am so proud of the work they did. Tamara Fucile took this issue on as a personal matter. Her children actually had some of the Thomas the Train sets. I cannot tell you to how many hearings she carried those trains, chewed on by her own children, and I would hold them up to show Senators this was a real thing. I thank Tamara, and I also thank her children for parting with their toys, although they are recalled toys. Kate Nilan has been doing a wonderful job with our office working on these consumer issues. In the last week, Kate was very involved in making sure that our amendment, which banned industries paying for travel, industries that the consumer protection agency is supposed to be regulating, the amendment that Senator Menendez and I did got voted on in this body 94 to 0. It is because of the good work of Kate Nilan in putting that amendment together and working out the procedural issues. I thank both of my staff members for their fine work on this bill. Tamara was also very involved in the lead standard. She originally worked with me when we said: Why would we not have a Federal lead standard for toys? Why would we have State-by-State standards and some States do not have them and they are different all over the place? We finally have an aggressive lead standard that basically bans lead in children's toys, the first year allowing some trace levels and going down after that. That was Tamara's good work. I wish to acknowledge the Commerce staff who worked hard on this bill from the beginning: David Strickland was there every step of the way, as well as Alex Hoehn-Saric for his work, and Price Feland, a member of Senator Pryor's staff, as well as staff of Senator Durbin who got involved in this issue early on when Senator Durbin and I met in Chicago with a number of the toy retailers and manufacturers that were concerned about this and knew something had to change in Washington in terms of the funding for this agency, as well as the tools they have to do their jobs. Senator Nelson has played such an instrumental role when it came to making sure we had third-party verification, as well as the durable goods standard in the bill; then, of course, Senator Stevens and Senator Collins, who assisted in getting bipartisan support for the bill, and Senator Pryor, who managed it during this week flawlessly. We are very excited about the change today, that I can go home tonight and tell my 12-year-old daughter--who, I have to tell you, was rather embarrassed about this whole thing when her mom was involved when it was about SpongeBob SquarePants, but when the Barbies started getting recalled, she came into the kitchen and said: Mom, this is really getting serious. So I am going to be able to go home today and tell her we did something good in the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment, No. 4105, as modified.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 4105 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act. This is the amendment Senator Menendez and I have introduced to ban industry- sponsored travel by those who regulate them.