Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervention action, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 428, submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 426, submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 427, submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, January 28; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 3 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 2248, the FISA legislation, and that the time until 4:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with the final 20 minutes equally divided between the two leaders, with the majority leader in control of the final 10 minutes, and that the cloture vote on the Reid amendment not occur prior to the 4:30 cloture vote.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2557, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, at 4:30 p.m. the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Rockefeller-Bond substitute amendment. If cloture is not invoked on the substitute, a second vote would then occur on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid amendment. As a reminder, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments is 4 p.m. on Monday. As a reminder, at 9 p.m. Monday, the President will address a joint session of Congress to present his State of the Union Address.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about my support for the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill because there is a vital need for our Native American communities to have access to modernized health care. Today, the health disparities between our tribal communities and the rest of the country are shocking. According to the Indian Health Service, the average life expectancy for Native Americans is almost 2\1/2\ years below any other group in the country. The incidence of sudden death syndrome among tribal communities is more than three times the rate of nontribal infants. If you are a Native American, you are 200 percent more likely to die of diabetes, you are 500 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, you are 550 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, and you are 60 percent more likely to commit suicide. These may seem like nothing but statistics, but behind them are real people who are in real need of modernized health care services. The suicide rate among Native American youth is the highest of any racial group in the Nation. In fact, suicide is the third leading cause of death among Native American youth. One of the country's most recent victims is a 12-year-old Red Lake boy who hanged himself last October. This young boy's suicide only added to the heartache of the Red Lake Indian Reservation, which is located in my State of Minnesota. This Indian reservation, the people there had already suffered a lot. Back in March of 2005, at the Red Lake High School, a troubled teenager named Jeff Weise went on a shooting rampage, killing nine people before turning the gun on himself. Most of the news reports highlighted the troubled teen's past, including a history of depression and suicide attempts and the daunting socioeconomic conditions in his reservation community. This calamity serves as a tragic reminder of the importance of increasing efforts to effectively address mental health issues in Indian Country and elsewhere. I know my colleague, Senator Dorgan, has been leading this effort, this bipartisan effort, to make sure we reauthorize this important act. We know the negative impact mental health issues have on our communities, but we also know access to modern mental health care resources can make a difference. That is why it is so critical to reauthorize the Indian Health Care and Improvement Act. Reauthorizing this bill will provide tribal communities with the tools needed to build comprehensive behavioral health prevention and treatment programs--programs that emphasize collaboration among alcohol and substance abuse, social services, and mental health programs, and programs that will help communities such as Red Lake prevent further tragedies. Reauthorizing this bill will also help tribal communities attract and retain qualified Indian health care professionals and address the backlog in needed health care facilities on Indian reservations. I have visited the facilities. I visited the reservations throughout my State, and I know they are in need of this help. The lack of availability of nearby health care facilities and specialized treatment is a major concern for tribal communities, especially those with large reservations. On the Minnesota White Earth Indian Reservation, which is the largest reservation in our State, spanning 200 miles and home to almost 10,000 people, elective surgeries are not even an option--in an area that spans 200 miles--due to a lack of modernized health care resources and facilities. Currently, these White Earth tribal members are unable to undergo elective surgery on the reservation. These are people who need a hip replacement or a knee replacement or a simple cataract surgery, but they are unable to get the health care they deserve because there is a lack of doctors, adequate medical facilities, and basic insurance coverage. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide health care for our tribal communities. I cosponsored the Indian Health Care Improvement Act because we made a commitment to our tribal communities. We must ensure our tribal communities have access to convenient, preventive, and modern health care. I urge my colleagues to join me and support reauthorizing this important bill. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today first to thank my staff for their wonderful work on the farm bill: Hilary Bolea, who is a very smart young woman, who has been working with us in Washington, DC, and then also Dave Frederickson, experienced--he was the former head of the National Farmers Union who came out of retirement to join my staff in Minnesota. They are quite a pair. My favorite thing this summer is when Dave Frederickson took Hilary Bolea to a tractor pull at the Minnesota Farmfest. So we have a great team, and I am proud of their work. I am happy the farm bill passed today with its forward-looking provisions on cellulosic ethanol, the disaster relief, permanent disaster relief that we worked so hard to get, the strong safety net for our farmers. The reasons we had that safety net 75 years ago in the Depression with volatile prices, volatile weather, continue today. As you know, I would have liked to have seen a little more reform in this bill. I would like to see some income eligibility limits as well as the subsidy limits set down in the Dorgan-Grassley bill. We are going to continue to push for that reform. We will work with Representative Peterson, who is from Minnesota, the head of the Ag Committee in the House, and our great leader, Senator Harkin, with our ranking member, Senator Chambliss, as the bill goes to conference committee. I am hopeful there will be some discussion with the White House about the reform in the bill. We have a very good start here and we need to continue that discussion in the months to come. The other thing, I wish to commend the Senate for passing the Energy bill yesterday. I came out of the Commerce Committee. We worked on that gas mileage standard. We are now seeing a 10-mile-per-gallon increase, not only good for the environment but also, most importantly, good for the American consumer. They can save money by having less cost for gas. This energy bill is just the beginning of us starting to focus not on spending all our money on the oil cartels in the Middle East but instead focusing on the farmers and workers of the Midwest and our own energy independence. Finally, on the FHA reauthorization and the work being done on the subprime issue, I had a roundtable with a number of people involved in this back in Minnesota. Minnesota is fourth in the country for subprime mortgage foreclosures. The chickens are coming home to roost in terms of predatory lending. We finally have started to work on the issue in Washington, and we see the problems it is causing not only for individual homebuyers but for entire neighborhoods and communities. All in all, I believe we got some things done at the end of the week. The one last thing I commend the Senate for is the work on the pool safety bill. I have spoken on the floor a few times about something of maybe little note when you look at the larger scheme, but a very important note to one family, and that is the Taylor family of Edina, MN. Their girl Abby was severely injured in a wading pool this summer. She may never eat again. She is sick but she is so strong in spirit. Her family called me literally every 2 weeks to check on the progress of this bill. Because of Abby, we were able to strengthen the bill. It was named after former Secretary of State Jim Baker's granddaughter when she was so tragically killed in a similar accident. This puts in a standard, a retroactive standard for public pools which includes apartments, any pools used by the public. It includes stronger drain covers, a vacuum suction system. It is a very good bill. The House bill is similar. I have every intention to get this thing done. I thank Senator Pryor, Senator Stevens, and others for their work to get this done on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. One of the proudest moments my year here was when I was able to call Scott Taylor last night at about 9 p.m. from the Senate floor and tell him that that bill had passed and to know we were going to go home to Minnesota and have a little Christmas present for that family, something we worked so hard on to make sure this wouldn't happen to another child. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the average farmer in my State makes $54,000 a year. I think you see family farmers like that all across this country. That is what this amendment is about. There has been debate about Scottie Pippen and all these people. The USDA has looked at this, the Government has looked at this, and this would save about $355 million. Where is that $355 million coming from? It is coming from full-time farmers who are grossing $750,000 or more, into the millions a year, and part-time farm investors who are making over $250,000 a year. That is where this is coming from. There has been discussion, which I think is smoke and mirrors, about expenses. Let me make clear, farmers can deduct their operating expenses such as seed, fertilizer, fuel, and labor from their adjusted gross income. When it comes to investment in buildings and equipment, these are capital expenses, and they depreciate over time. That depreciation is deductible. When it comes to land, it works like it does a home mortgage. Your interest is deductible, but your land is something you have that you get value from. When it comes to rented land, the rental cost of the land is fully deductible from adjusted gross income. I didn't come up with these laws. They are in the Tax Code. They are the law. What this is about is making sure we have some real reform. Because if we don't do it in the farm States, it is going to happen to us. I have said this before, and I truly believe it will happen. There has been some discussion about what our existing bill does. Let me explain again. The House-passed bill sets it at $1 million for full time, $500,000 for part time. My colleagues have been saying: We have a 70-percent reduction for a part-time farmer. That goes to say, if you start high enough at $2.5 million, anything like 70 percent sounds good. But instead, in fact, the actual Senate bill is only at $750,000 for a part-time farmer. I have visited hard-working farmers all over my State, visited all 87 counties 2 years in a row. I have talked to them and to farm groups across the country. Do they like this? Well, not totally. They get concerned. What does that mean? I think many of them understand--and I know Senator Grassley knows this in Iowa and Senator Dorgan understands this in North Dakota--that at some point the Government has a limited amount of money. We have to make some decisions. What I am saying is, let's make a decision to help the hard-working farmers of this country to move in that new direction, to cellulosic ethanol and energy independence and good conservation and making sure we have a strong safety net that this farm program deserves. Let's go in that direction to the future and not stay here where we increasingly, as our economy has changed, are giving a larger amount of money to the wealthiest investors. Beverly Hills 90210, $1 million in payments. I believe in this safety net. I support this farm bill. I will support this farm bill, because I believe in a safety net. But I believe it is time to move to some reform. The people of this country are ready for this reform. The people in our rural communities are ready for this reform. Now, my friends, we have a chance to do it. I thank the Chair.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to address my amendment, No. 3810, and I want to talk about the importance of reform to this farm bill. I was disappointed today when the amendment of Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley was defeated. It was a very important amendment. In other years, we actually had enough votes for this amendment, before I was here, but we weren't able to muster the votes necessary to block the filibuster. Well, we have one more opportunity, and that opportunity is this afternoon. America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farms from the financial shocks of volatile weather and volatile prices. I believe after 75 years, the reasons for that safety net still exist, and I believe the farm bill that came through our committee has some very good things in it. It is forward thinking; it is about cellulosic ethanol. It is about finally having some permanent disaster relief. It is about a strong safety net for America's farmers. But there is one thing missing from this farm bill, Madam President, and that is the kind of reform that we need to move forward. I want to demonstrate what we are talking about here with our amendment, which is cosponsored with Senator Durbin and Senator Brown, and why I think it is so important to this bill. As you know, I come from a farm State. It is sixth in the country for agriculture. I am proud of the work our State does and our farmers, and we have diverse farming. I know some of the farmers in my State may not like this, but the vast majority of them support this reform because they know if we don't reform ourselves, someone else will do it for us. What I am talking about is farm subsidies going to people who shouldn't have them, such as Maurice Wilder, who is a guy that is very wealthy, and who was the No. 1 recipient of commodity payments from 2003 to 2005. He has collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments for properties in five States, even though his net worth is more than $500 million. We also have $3.1 million in farm payments going to residents of the District of Columbia, $4.2 million going to people in Manhattan, and $1 million of taxpayer money going to Beverly Hills 90210. Now, what can we do to change this? The first thing we are doing is we are getting rid of the three-entity rule, which cuts down on abuse and allows these payments to go to the people they should go to, and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations so that they get multiple payments. The second thing we could have done--and sadly we defeated it today-- was the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, which would have put a limit on the actual payment at $250,000. That is a lot of money where I come from. But there is a third thing that we still have the opportunity to do today. I ask my colleagues, those who are fiscal conservatives and who really care about fairness in this country, to look at this amendment and think about what we are doing. Right now, under existing law, no matter how much you net in income--and I am here talking about deducting expenses because expenses don't count. So when my colleagues talk about farms that might have higher expenses, those are out of it. This is just adjusted gross income. So for full-time farmers who have unlimited incomes, they can be making millions and millions and millions of dollars. They still qualify for subsidies. And because we weren't able to get it passed and put a limit on subsidies, they do not have that $250,000 cap. Part-time farmers right now, under existing law, can make $2.5 million, and they get subsidies and marketing loans, since we were unable to pass this limitation today. The President's number, which came with the administration's suggested agriculture proposal, was a $200,000 limit--a $200,000 limit for both full and part time. The Agriculture Committee in the House is chaired by Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and I wouldn't call him a radical guy. He has been a friend of farmers forever. He put the limit at $1 million for full-time and $500,000 for part-time farmers. And he has recently been saying publicly that he thinks it should go lower than that, especially since we do not have the total limit on subsidies that was contained in the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Now, what does the Senate bill do--the bill that came out of our committee? It has not changed for full-time farmers. No reform for full-time farmers. For part-time farmers, very slowly, it gets to a $750,000 limitation in income--for part-time farmers. This amendment says $750,000 for full-time farmers should be the limit--$750,000 in income on top of expenses. Now, if you have a bad year and you are a big farmer, you are still going to qualify. But if you make over $750,000, that is where there is a cutoff. It is great you are making money--you should put it in the bank--but then you don't qualify for the subsidies. If you are a part-time farmer, under our amendment you can make $250,000 or under, and then you will qualify for the subsidies. And here is where we are talking about these investors, the people who aren't full-time farmers, people making less than 66 percent of their income from farming. Now, what does this amendment do? Let's consider what it means. If you live in a city, and you have a job as an investment banker and make $2 million a year, you don't get the government checks. Right now you can, but under our amendment you won't be able to. And if you are a full-time farmer, meaning more than 75 percent of your income comes from farming, under current law there is absolutely no limit on your income, and you will still get those government checks. This puts some reasonable limits on the income when you qualify for the government farm subsidy checks. That is what it does. I have to tell you this: With the kind of budget battles we have ahead of us, we have to look at what we are doing and we have to be thinking: Is this fair? When we have a limited amount of money, Madam President, and we are going to have to deal with Social Security and Medicare and all these issues, if we can't even say, for farmers making over $750,000, we are not going to put some limit on these government checks, I really don't understand how we are going to grapple with these tougher issues. It is a matter of fairness because I believe this money should be going to family farmers. That is what this system was set up to do. It should be going to the hard-working farmers in this country, not to art collectors in San Francisco and not to real estate developers in Florida. That is all we are trying to do with this amendment. So I would appeal to my friends on both sides of the aisle and suggest that this is our opportunity to act. We have the chair of the House Agriculture Committee already putting in their bill some limits and indicating they may want to go lower. We have an opportunity to be part of that change. I am going to give the other side some opportunity to speak and save the rest of my time, but I will end with a little holiday story. I thought we needed a little holiday cheer today, on a very difficult day. My daughter and I, when she was 9 years old, went to see the movie ``Polar Express.'' We watched this fanciful movie, and after we came out, she said to me: Mom, you know, there was one thing in that movie that wasn't true. And I looked at her and thought, what could it be? Could it be when this big body of water froze over so the train could go over it? Was it when a million elves suddenly appeared at the North Pole? Was that the one thing that wasn't true? She said: You know, Mom, at the end, when the conductor--who was played by Tom Hanks--says to the little boy: Come on, kid, get on the train. It doesn't matter what direction the train is going, just get on the train. And she looked at me and she said: Mom, it does matter what direction the train is going. Well, that is what I would say to my colleagues today. It matters what direction the train is going. Are we going to be putting money into the hard-working family farmers in this country or are we going to spend it on real estate developers in Florida who have $5 million to their name or art collectors in San Francisco? Are we willing to say, change is afoot, and then be agents of change. People in this country want to see change. We heard that in this last election. This is our opportunity; it is our chance to go in the direction of reform. We have done that with so many different parts of this farm bill, and that is why I supported this farm bill in committee, but this is our chance to go in the direction of change. It is a very small incremental step, but it will start us going in the right direction with this farm bill--a direction of reform. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask how much time I have remaining.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, how much time remains on my side and the other side?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Two minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Illinois. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Dave Frederickson, who is my agriculture staff person from Minnesota and former head of the National Farmers Union, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the farm bill debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak briefly on my amendment, which is amendment No. 3810. I am going to reserve most of my time for tomorrow because some of my colleagues want to address this bill. Mr. President, America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression. It was created to protect struggling family farmers from volatile prices and from volatile weather. I think the reasons for that safety net still remain today. That is why I am a strong supporter of this farm bill. I believe there are some forward thinking provisions in this farm bill, including with regard to energy, cellulosic energy--something near and dear to my heart. We have worked hard on those provisions. The permanent disaster relief is so important for the farmers in my State. I think the safety net that helped our farmers in the 2002 farm bill and allowed them to take risks and revitalize a lot of the areas in this country are good. That is why I support this farm bill. But I also believe there is a need for reform in this farm bill. I believe the money that is set aside for a safety net for our farmers should be going to the hard-working farmers in this country and not to urban millionaires. When you look at what happened over the last few years, there are scandals. There are people who should not have gotten this money. There are art collectors in San Francisco and real estate developers in Florida. When we look at where the money went, I think we can conclude there are not a lot of farms in, say, the District of Columbia, where we stand today. Mr. President, $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia, $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan, and $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210. The last time I checked, there is not a lot of farmland in those areas. I believe we can fix this problem. As Senator Dorgan said today, if we don't fix it ourselves, someone is going to fix it for us. I believe the people who live in farm States have an obligation to make sure these programs are appropriate and that they are going to the right people. That is why I am proud that in this last farm bill, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, we have included in this farm bill an end to the three-entity rule. We have eliminated it. It will cut down the abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married couples and to ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations so they get multiple payments. I also support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment that puts some sensible limits on the total number of subsidies. But also I believe it is very important that we put some reasonable limits on income eligibility. Now, what we have here with our amendment is reasonable. Let me go through what the law is right now. Right now, the law, for full-time farmers, says if you get at least 75 percent of your income from farming, you have an unlimited amount of income and profit you can make, and you can still get Government subsidies. That is how it works. It says for part-time farmers, if you get $2.45 million--you may just be an investor in Beverly Hills--you can still make up to $2.5 million, and you get the subsidies. We know that with the budget problems this country is facing, we need to make some sensible reforms. The President has proposed a $200,000 limit on income for both part- time and full-time farmers. The House-passed version has suggested a $1 million limit on income for full-time farmers and a $500,000 limit for part-time farmers. So it is more generous than the administration, but it is still a big change from what the current law is. Our Senate bill that came out of committee, unfortunately, still allows for unlimited income for full-time farmers, and then basically for part-time farmers ends up after a number of years at $750,000. What our amendment does, the Klobuchar-Durbin-Brown amendment--and we have a number of people on the other side of the aisle who are going to be supporting this as well, as well as the Department of Agriculture. It simply says for full-time farmers, if you make in profit $750,000, at that point you are not going to get any more Government farm payments. Now, if you have a bad year, and disaster strikes and you go below that amount, you will be eligible for those payments. For part- time farmers, some of the investors, the people who are making less than 66 percent of their income from farming, if you make $250,000, then, at that point, you are no longer eligible for these payments. Now, I don't think this is something outrageous. I think this is good policy. When I think about the farmers in my State, the average income of a farmer is $54,000. That is why as we look at this farm bill and what we want to do for the new and beginning farmers, we want to get more farmers involved in agriculture. We want to do more for nutrition, conservation, and most important to me, moving to this next generation of cellulosic ethanol, we have to acknowledge that at some point, multimillionaires who live in urban areas should not be getting these farm payments. So I am going to reserve the remainder of my time for tomorrow because my colleagues want to address this issue. I think we will have a good debate. But I wanted to put it in people's minds tonight so they can go back and talk to their staffs about how important it is and how sensible it is to put some reasonable income limits on this farm bill. Right now, our Senate bill has no income limits for full-time farmers and goes all the way up to $750,000 for part-time farmers. I believe we can do better and still strongly support the family farmers in this country. I support them. My State is sixth in the country for agriculture; No. 1 turkey producer in the country. We have a lot of corn. We have some great people who are revitalizing our State because of the hard work they did, and the 2002 farm bill helped them. We want to keep those strong reforms in place, keep the safety net in place, add the disaster relief, add the conservation focus, but we also want to have some reasonable reforms so the money goes where it should go, and that is to our hard-working farmers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first again wish to commend Senator Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and our entire Agriculture Committee for the work we are doing on this farm bill. I am excited that it is moving ahead. As you know, I am hopeful that we will get some more reform in the bill, including my amendment to make sure the hard-working farmers in this country are at the receiving end of the help from the farm bill as opposed to multimillionaires from across this country. I look forward to debating that in the next few days. Toy Safety I am here to talk about another topic, and that is that across Minnesota and across the country, families are making their annual trips to stores and to malls for their holiday presents. Kids are making their wish lists. I know my daughter has her own. Parents are combing the ads for the best prices. But this year, parents are thinking about something a little more than the price, a little more than the wish list. They are also wondering if the toys they are buying are safe. In fact, just this weekend, I visited Morehead, MN, in 20-below-zero weather, and I can tell you there were a number of parents who turned out, as well as people who work in this area, to talk about their concerns about the safety of toys. They told me they are shocked that in this day and age that we have these toxic toys on our shores and in our stores and we have to put an end to it. This year, almost 29 million toys and pieces of children's jewelry have been recalled because they were found to be dangerous and, in some cases, deadly for children. In many cases, the reason for these recalls have been truly horrific. Who would believe that a parent would buy some Aqua Dots, a very popular toy for their children, and find out the child swallowed this little dot, which normally you wouldn't think would become a disaster, but in fact this toy had morphed into the date rape drug and put their child into a coma. That is what happened in this country. Another 9 million toys have been recalled this year for containing toxic levels of lead. The lead levels in these toys can lead to development delay, brain damage, and even death, if swallowed. As a mom and as a former prosecutor and now as a Senator, I find it totally unacceptable that these toys are in our country. As my 12-year- old daughter said when her famous Barbies were recalled: Mom, this is really getting serious. It is clear that the current system we have in place to ensure the safety of products for our most vulnerable consumers--our children-- needs to be fixed, and we need to fix it now. The Senate Commerce Committee on which I serve has taken strong action to stem the tide of these recalls. The Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007, which was passed by the Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman Inouye and Chairman Pryor and with my help, as well as the help of Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Durbin, represents some of the most sweeping reforms that we have seen in 15 years for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The bill would finally take the lead out of children's products, establish real third party verification, simplify the recall process, and make it illegal to sell a recalled product. It also gives this long forgotten agency the resources it needs to protect our children. The recent action by the Commerce Committee sends to the Senate floor an opportunity to reform our consumer protection laws and effectively ban lead from kids' products. I am hopeful that we will act quickly, that we will work out any details that need to be worked out, and that when we adjourn for the holidays, this reform will be passed. To me, the focus is simple. We need to make sure there is a clear mandatory standard--not just voluntary, not just a guideline, but with the force of law. I think it is shocking for most parents when they realize there has never been a mandatory ban on lead in children's products; instead, we have this voluntary guideline that involves a bunch of redtape that makes it hard to enforce. As millions of toys are being pulled from the store shelves for fear of lead contamination, it is time to make crystal clear that lead has no place in kids' toys. The need for this ban was crystallized for me in Minnesota when a little 4-year-old boy named Jarnell Brown got a pair of tennis shoes at a store in our State. With the pair of shoes came a little charm, and this little boy was playing with the charm and swallowed it. He didn't die from choking or from some kind of blockage of his airways. No, he died from the lead in that charm. The lead that should never have been in that charm went into his bloodstream over a period of time. When they tested that charm, it was 99 percent lead. It came from China. This little boy died. What is most tragic about this death is that it could have been prevented. He should never have been given that toy in the first place. It shouldn't take a child's death to alert us that we need to do something about this problem in this country. The legislation I originally introduced to address this problem is included in our bill. There is a lead standard in the bill that effectively bans lead, allowing for trace levels for jewelry and allowing for some trace levels for toys. For 30 years we have been aware of the dangers posed to children by lead. The science is clear. It is undisputed that lead poisons kids. It shouldn't have taken this long to figure that out, but we know it and know we can do something about it. As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated since 1990. During that time, since 1990, we have had billions of dollars' worth of toys coming in from China and other countries that have essentially been unregulated because of a lack of resources for that agency. It is a shadow of its former self. It is half the size that it used to be in the 1980s. Here we have billions of dollars' worth of unregulated toys coming into this country, and there has been no response from this agency, no requests for a big increase. Nothing. Meanwhile, these toys are coming on to our shores. The inspection effort for toys at the Consumer Product Safety Commission is led by a man named Bob, and he has an office that is kind of messy in the back of the CPSC and he is retiring at the end of this year. We need to get more toy inspectors in the field. We need to give this agency the tools it needs to do its job. The legislation sitting before the Senate today goes a long way in modernizing the Commission. The legislation more than doubles the CPSC's budget by the year 2015--something we wish the CPSC asked for itself, but we went ahead and did it ourselves. The CPSC Reform Act will actually make it illegal to sell a recalled toy, finally taking action against those bad actors out there who are knowingly leaving recalled products on their shelves. I do at this moment wish to thank some retailers that have worked with us on this bill. The CEO of Toys 'R Us testified. We worked with Target, a Minnesota company. They want to get some legislation passed, and they want to actually increase the budget of this agency so there can be more inspection. This bill will also--and this is the piece of the bill that I worked on--make it easier for parents to identify toys when they are recalled. I have to tell my colleagues, when most parents get their toys and their children open them on Christmas morning, they don't keep the packaging. My mother-in-law keeps the packaging, but most people don't. So you have this packaging, and then you have the toy. What we are saying is, the batch number should be on the toy if it is practical. You can't do it on Pick Up Sticks, but you can do it on the foot of a Barbie or on SpongeBob Square Pants, so that when a parent knows about a recall--and we know there are more to come, although we hope they level off soon--the parent can actually figure out which toy to throw out and which toy to keep in their toy box. This is good practical reform to which everyone has agreed. The other piece of this is that the batch number should be on the packaging. That is because, unlike some of the big retailers where it is easy for them to pull these recalled toys from their shelves and to zero them out on their computer system, some people buy toys on eBay, they buy them at garage sales, and that is why we think it is very important these toy numbers be on the actual packaging as well as on the toy. 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 it is important to take this step to protect the safety of our children. When I think of that little 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota and think about all of those other children who have been hurt by these toys--the one who just went into a coma over the date rape drug--they are just little kids. We can do better in this country. We can put the rules in place and make it easier for them to do their job. We can't just sit around bemoaning the results anymore. We have to act. We have the opportunity. We must pass this bill before we go home for recess. Mr. President, I yield the floor.