Regulatory Flexibility Reform Act of 2005

Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of

2005, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize provisions of the landmark anti- terrorism legislation we adopted in the wake of September 11, 2001. We continue to give tools to law enforcement to protect our security; and, at the same time, we make important improvements to the law to ensure greater protection of civil liberties and to require greater accountability through enhanced reporting and oversight.

In recent months, the political rhetoric about the PATRIOT Act has reached a fever pitch. Not surprisingly, however, the reality fails to match the rhetoric. As the Washington Post has editorialized, ``[a]lthough the PATRIOT Act has become a catch phrase for civil liberties anxieties, it in fact has little connection to the most serious infringements on civil liberties in the war on terrorism.'' At the same time, it would be unwise to credit the act with all of our hard-won successes in the effort to combat terror. As evidenced by the grisly attacks in London last week, no law or surveillance regime can prevent every terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, as last week's attacks remind us, the danger of international terrorism remains real, and has not abated in the years since 9/11. So, we must remain vigilant, and we must be cautious not to recreate the legal circumstances that arguably contributed to significant intelligence failures before 9/11. Reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, while incorporating improvements designed to safeguard our liberties and enhance oversight, is the right thing to do. To quote the Post again, ``there is little evidence of abuse--and considerable evidence that the law has facilitated needed cooperation. Based on what's known, it merits reauthorization with minor modifications.''

The bill we introduce today is the result of careful consideration. We have listened both to the concerns of critics and the arguments of the administration. We have probed and prodded both for information. And, we have consulted with both sides of the political aisle to fashion language designed to maintain the Government's ability to effectively investigate--and hopefully preempt--terrorist attacks, while making changes to reassure the American people that the law will be used responsibly, consistent with the rights enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. President, I would like to focus on the changes we have made to those PATRIOT Act provisions that have generated the most controversy.

The PATRIOT Act modified electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, to permit multipoint wiretaps of suspected terrorists or spies; but only upon a judicial finding of probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power and a further finding that the target's actions could thwart efforts to identify a single phone company or similar communications provider upon whom to serve the order. The principle behind this authority, which parallels similar authority in the criminal law, is that surveillance of a suspected terrorist or spy should be permitted to continue, uninterrupted, when the target changes phones. By definition, a multipoint wiretap order does not identify the specific phone to be tapped, because the order allows the Government to track the person not a single device. This was a change made necessary by the advent of cell phones, which are easily purchased and then discarded. After passage of the PATRIOT Act, however, this authority was further modified, so that a FISA surveillance order only had to specify the identity of the target ``if known.'' If the identity was unknown, the order had to include a ``description of the target,'' but there was no further requirement about how detailed the description of such ``John Doe'' targets had to be--raising concerns that the Government could conduct roving surveillance of a broadly described target. Our bill corrects this shortcoming and makes other improvements to the roving authority under FISA.

First, the bill responds to concerns that so-called John Doe roving wiretaps could be used against someone described generically as a ``Middle Eastern male'' or ``Hispanic female'' by requiring such orders to include ``sufficient information to describe a specific target with particularity.'' This makes it clear that, although such orders may ``rove'' from one phone to another when the target changes devices, the Government cannot ``rove'' from one investigative target to another, seeking to identify the right person. Through this change, we avoid rewarding terrorists or spies who successfully conceal their identities, but we also protect innocent Americans from unwarranted surveillance.

The bill further minimizes the chance that ``roving'' wiretaps could be used indiscriminately against multiple devices by requiring the Government to notify the court every time it begins surveillance of a new device. This notice must be made within 10 days of the initiation of surveillance, and must include a description of the new device, as well as the ``facts and circumstances'' indicating that each new phone or similar device is ``being used, or is about to be used,'' by the target. The notice must also update the techniques being used to minimize the interception and retention of unrelated communications. Finally, the bill adds new reporting requirements and extends the sunset date until December 31, 2009, allowing Congress to revisit the need for this surveillance tool.

I would next like to turn to the bill's modification of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, perhaps the most controversial provision of the act, and one that is frequently misidentified as the ``library'' provision.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, FISA authorized the FBI to obtain orders for the production of certain types of business records, including those of hotels, car rental agencies and storage facilities, in limited circumstances. Under the pre-PATRIOT standard, however, the FBI could not even seek the records of someone observed in the presence of a suspected spy or terrorist, unless it had specific reasons to suspect the associate was himself a spy or terrorist. Strangely, this standard was significantly higher than the standard applicable to similar records requests in criminal cases. Accordingly, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit orders for any records or tangible things sought in connection with an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

As enacted, however, section 215 did not require the FBI to establish the factual basis for the requested order. According to critics, section 215 rendered the FISA court little more than a rubber stamp for the Government's requests. Moreover, section 215 included no explicit right for recipients to confer with legal counsel. And, despite oft- repeated comparisons to grand jury subpoenas, orders under section 215 included no explicit right to judicial review akin to a motion to quash a subpoena. Indeed, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, Attorney General Gonzales conceded these shortcomings in the law, and expressed a new willingness to consider modifications of section 215.

Our bill addresses these issues, and adds still more protections to ensure the provision is used responsibly. First, the bill eliminates the mere certification of relevance required by current law and enhances the factual showing that must be made by the Government to obtain records. It also requires the court to agree with the adequacy of the Government's factual showing, and adds several procedural protections including heightened approval requirements and increased reporting for orders seeking sensitive materials, like library or medical records. Specifically, the bill requires the Government to submit ``a statement of facts'' showing ``reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant'' to an authorized investigation. The bill then addresses concerns about the FISA judge acting as a ``rubber stamp'' by requiring the court to find that the facts establish ``reasonable grounds to believe'' the items sought are relevant. The bill also adds an explicit right to consult counsel; provides for judicial review; requires approval of the FBI Director or Deputy Director for orders concerning library records and other sensitive materials; and adds annual reports to Congress regarding use of the provision to obtain library records, book sales records, firearms sales records, health information or tax information. This reporting feature is important because it enables

the Congress to monitor the Justice Department's activities.

In addition to the foregoing, the bill also requires an annual report on the number of times FISA orders for records and tangible things have been issued, modified, or denied. At our April 5 hearing, the Attorney General declassified the fact that, as of March 30, 2005, the FISA court had ``granted the department's request for a 215 order 35 times.'' He further noted that section 215 had not been used to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records or gun sale records. According to the Attorney General, section 215 had been used only to obtain driver's license records, public accommodation records, apartment leasing records, credit card records and subscriber information, such as names and addresses for telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen register devices. It is our hope that regular public reporting, together with enhanced congressional reporting, will bolster public confidence in the law without compromising sensitive investigations. Finally, as with the multipoint surveillance authority, we have extended the sunset date for section 215 of the PATRIOT Act until December 31, 2009, so Congress must revisit the continuing need for this tool.

Another PATRIOT Act provision that has inspired significant criticism is section 213 of the act, which authorized delayed notice or so-called sneak & peek search warrants. Unlike the other sections I have discussed, section 213 is not scheduled to sunset later this year. Nevertheless, in recognition of the concerns raised about this provision, we have made several changes to this authority as well.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, three Federal circuits had approved the practice of delayed notice search warrants. Supreme Court precedent also supported the legality of judicially authorized covert entries. Indeed, in Dalia v. United States, a 1979 case involving the analogous situation of a covert entry to install a listening device, the Supreme Court described as ``frivolous'' the argument that ``covert entries are unconstitutional for their lack of notice.'' Nevertheless, in the 1995 case of Wilson v. Arkansas, which focused on whether officers must ``knock and announce'' their presence before serving a warrant, the Court held that, ``in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'' But, the Court did not address sneak and peek warrants directly, and it left ``to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.''

The PATRIOT Act sought to create a unified standard for delayed notice searches. Under the PATRIOT Act, notice of a search may be delayed if a court finds reasonable cause to believe immediate notice may have an adverse result, including: (A) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (B) flight from prosecution; (C) destruction of, or tampering with, evidence; (D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. Notice must be provided within a ``reasonable period'' of time, which may be extended for good cause. As noted by critics, however, the period of delay could be indefinite. And, in at least six instances reported by the Department of Justice, courts have authorized unspecified periods of delay--such as delays until the conclusion of an investigation.

Over the last 3 months, at the Judiciary Committee's request, the Department of Justice has furnished new information about its use of delayed notice search warrants. This data shows that delayed notice warrants account for less than 0.2 percent of the warrants handled by Federal district courts. Moreover, delayed notice warrants based solely on seriously jeopardizing an investigation account for less than 1 in every 1,500 warrants--mitigating concerns that the ``catch-all'' provision is being overused. DOJ has also now supplied summaries of 15 cases--out of a total of 22 where the delay was based solely on the ``catch-all.'' In these cases, the delay was based on the substantial risk of comprising a title III wiretap or frustrating efforts to identify the full scope of a complex criminal enterprise. Accordingly, the draft bill does not eliminate seriously jeopardizing an investigation as a basis for delay. Instead, the bill enhances reporting requirements--including the addition of new public reporting requirements--to ensure that DOJ continues to use this authority responsibly. The bill also requires the court to set a ``date certain'' for notice to be provided, eliminating concerns about indefinite delays. The bill permits extensions of the delay period, but requires that extensions be granted only ``upon an updated showing of the need for further delay.'' Finally, the bill limits extensions to 90 days each, which parallels the notice requirements for criminal wiretaps and ``bugs'' which are arguably more invasive that a one-time search, because they may require covert entries and they continue to collect personal data for extended periods of time.

As these changes illustrate, while reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, we have emphasized enhanced oversight through reporting. This bill adds reporting requirements to several PATRIOT provisions, including the aforementioned public reporting on delayed notice search warrants and FISA business records orders. The bill also adds public reporting on FISA pen registers and the emergency authorization of FISA electronic surveillance. Moreover, throughout FISA, the draft bill adds the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to reporting provisions currently limited to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

In addition, we have made adjustments to other provisions of the PATRIOT Act. These include:

Section 203, sharing criminal information with intelligence agencies: The bill requires notice to the authorizing court when foreign intelligence information gathered via a court-authorized criminal wiretap is disclosed to intelligence agencies.

Section 207, Duration of FISA surveillance of non-U.S. persons: The bill extends surveillance periods for non-U.S. persons under FISA, 120 days for original orders, and up to 1 year for extensions. Also, it extends the duration of FISA pen registers for non-U.S. persons, up to 1 year.

Section 212, emergency disclosure of electronic communications: The bill adds new reporting requirements to ensure the government is using this authority appropriately. The bill also makes technical corrections to harmonize the language permitting the emergency disclosure of contents and records.

Section 505, national security letters: The bill incorporates legislation introduced by Senator Cornyn to address a 2004 Federal district court decision holding a national security letter, or NSL, served on an Internet service provider unconstitutional. This legislation permits disclosure to legal counsel; allows court challenges; and permits judicial enforcement of NSLs.

Sunsets: As I have noted, the bill retains sunsets for PATRIOT sections 206, multi-point wiretaps, and 215, FISA orders for business records and tangible things. The bill also extends the sunset date for the ``Lone Wolf'' provision added to FISA by last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act until December 31, 2009.

Taken together, these changes provide important checks on the governmental authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act. At the same time, these amendments honor President Bush's call for Congress to reauthorize the act without weakening the tools used to combat terrorism. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein and Kyl in introducing this measure, and I look forward to securing the support of other Judiciary Committee members as we move to consider this bill.

Mr. President, I would ask that the Washington Post editorial mentioned in my remarks, as well as three letters from the Department of Justice on the use of delayed notice warrants, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2005, legislation to reauthorize and update the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senator John Sununu, the new Chairman of the Commerce Committee's National Ocean Policy Study, who is also greatly concerned about the fate of coral reefs and the future well-being of our coastal regions and resources.

Coral reefs, often called the ``rainforests of the sea,'' are among the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on

the planet. Covering less than one percent of the Earth's surface, these fragile resources provide services worth billions of dollars each year to the United States economy and economies worldwide. Coral reef resources provide economic and environmental benefits in the form of food, jobs, natural products, pharmaceuticals, and shoreline protection. In Hawaii, reef-related activities generate $360 million each year for the State's economy, and the overall worth of our reefs has been estimated at close to $10 billion.

However, these reefs are also under pressure from some 1.2 million residents and the seven million tourists visiting each year. Threats range from land-based sources of pollution, overfishing, recreational overuse, alien species introduction, marine debris, coral bleaching and the increased acidity of our oceans. Despite these impacts, there are still remote coral reefs that are largely intact, such as those in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The continued conservation and study of these isolated reefs is necessary for understanding healthy coral reef ecosystems and restoring impacted ecosystems.

The reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are an important nesting and breeding site for many endangered and threatened species. A Federal public designation process is underway to manage these areas as a National Marine Sanctuary, under a science-based management scheme that will accommodate multiple uses while achieving the necessary conservation goals. Increased funding and expanded Federal, State and local partnerships in this area have resulted in monitoring, mapping, and research programs have improved our understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of Hawaiian reefs which can be used to guide conservation and management decisions.

Through this reauthorization, we can build upon lessons learned in Hawaii and other areas and apply them throughout the United States. A mere five years ago, Congress took its first step toward addressing coral reef declines by authorizing legislation that provided targeted funding to advance our understanding and capacity to address threats to coral reefs. Since then, strong support for these programs around the country, as well as focused funding, have given us much information that will help us strengthen and refocus the legislation. The report of the U.S. Ocean Commission has further underscored the urgent need to improve management and conservation of coral reefs from a variety of threats. Our hearing on coral threats last month provided additional recommendations for changes to move from monitoring to action to improve coral conservation.

The Coral Reef Amendments Act of 2005 responds to these recommendations by increasing annual authorizations under the Coral Reef Conservation Act, starting at $30 million in fiscal year 2006, and increasing to $35 million in fiscal year 2009 to 2012. This roughly doubles the authorization levels in the existing act. It also gives priority attention to local action strategies and territorial needs, as well as on prevention of physical damage from vessel impacts. A new $8 million Community-Based Planning Grants program is included to encourage and enhance on-the-ground efforts to develop and implement coral management and protection plans, working through appropriate Federal and State management agencies. I am particularly pleased that this grant program will encourage adoption of traditional and island- based management approaches, many of which have a long history in the Pacific region.

The bill also fills a gap in authority needed for NOAA to respond to vessel groundings on coral reefs, damage that compounds over time if left unaddressed. Grounded vessels have remained on reefs, and have been a particular problem, when there is no viable owner or when the grounding occurs under circumstances that do not allow for response under authorities such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Oil Pollution Act. The July 2, 2005, grounding of the survey vessel CASITAS in the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and the damage caused in American Samoa several years ago when a typhoon drove 9 abandoned fishing vessels onto reefs in Pago Pago harbor, highlight the vulnerability of coral reefs to groundings, and limitations of existing law and funding.

The bill responds to these needs by giving NOAA statutory authority to respond on an emergency basis to prevent or mitigate coral reef destruction from vessel or other physical impacts, including damage caused by natural disasters. The bill also authorizes NOAA to use Coral Reef Conservation Funds for these purposes, and encourages leveraging resources and assistance from other Federal agencies, as well as private sources. To assist in preventing future groundings, the bill authorizes NOAA to establish a vessel grounding inventory, identify reefs outside National Marine Sanctuaries that are at risk, and recommend measures that may be used to prevent future groundings, such as navigational aids or beacons to warn mariners.

Finally, the bill specifically directs NOAA to coordinate on the federal, state, and local levels to implement the U.S. National Coral Action Strategy.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have fought to ensure that small businesses across the country are treated fairly by Federal Government regulations. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, Federal agencies promulgate regulations without adequately addressing the economic impacts on small businesses.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, was enacted in 1980 and requires Federal Government agencies to propose rules that keep the regulatory burden at a minimum on small businesses. The RFA requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of proposed regulations when there is likely to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In 1996, I was pleased to support, along with all of my colleagues, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, which amended the RFA. The intent of SBREFA was to further curtail the impact of burdensome or duplicative regulations on small businesses, by clarifying key RFA requirements. In September we will celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the RFA--a law that is largely working as Congress intended.

Unfortunately, there remain a number of loopholes in the RFA that undermine its effectiveness in reducing these regulatory burdens. To close these loopholes, today I introduce the Regulatory Flexibility Reform Act of 2005, RFRA. This bill would ensure that Federal agencies conduct a complete analysis of the impacts of Federal regulations, thereby providing small businesses, which represent more than 99 percent of all firms in America and provide up to 75 percent of new jobs each year, with much needed regulatory relief.

Under my legislation agencies must consider the indirect effects of an ``economic impact.'' Rules with indirect effects are currently exempt from RFA coverage according to well-established case law. This has serious consequences for small businesses. It means a Federal agency can avoid the various analyses required under the RFA by either requiring the States to regulate small entities or regulating an industry so rigorously that it has a negative trickle down impact on other industries.

For example, rules can regulate a handful of large manufacturers in the

same industry. Yet, a foreseeable, indirect effect of these rules--not presently considered under RFA analyses--is that small distributors would no longer have the right to sell the product produced by the larger manufacturers. In one case 100,000 small distributors were prevented from distributing their products.

This indirect economic effect had a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses because their ability to compete in the marketplace--and create jobs--has and will continue to be harmed.

In addition, this large loophole amounts to an ``unfunded mandate'' because many States do not have a requirement to conduct an RFA-type analysis of regulations. And even when there is such a statute on the books, those States frequently do not have the resources to conduct the analysis themselves. Worse still, for States with no requirement to conduct RFA-type analyses, the impact of the Federal regulation upon small businesses is never properly assessed either at the Federal or State level.

This situation demands reform.

Second, my legislation requires Federal agencies to consider comments provided by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. The SBA's Office of Advocacy does not receive the public attention it deserves. It should. In case after case it has been the last, best hope for small businesses faced with burdensome, duplicative and nonsensical Federal regulations.

The Office of Advocacy serves two critical roles: No. 1, it represents small business' interests before the Federal government in regulatory matters, and No. 2, it conducts valuable research to further our understanding of the importance of small businesses and their job creating potential in our economy.

My legislation would also amend the RFA to include a provision for agencies to specifically respond to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Codifying this necessary change would ensure that agencies give the proper deference to the Office of Advocacy, and hence, to the comments and concerns of small businesses. This is a straightforward and simple reform that could have major benefits.

Finally, the RFRA would clarify the circumstances for a periodic review of Federal rules. If there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, a review would be required. It would also clarify the requirement that agencies review all 10-year-old rules to avoid confusion over which rules to review. In addition, agencies would be required to review rules every 10 years and not just the first 10 years. That's because rules can have unintended and negative consequences in our changing global, information-age economy.

This legislation is absolutely necessary. I urge my colleagues to support my bill so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed regulatory relief.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Kid Safe Chemicals Act with Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Kerry, Corzine, Clinton and Kennedy. The purpose of the bill is simple--improve children's health by reducing exposure to harmful toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products.

Synthetic chemicals play an integral role in the US economy and in enhancing our quality of life. Yet--like most Americans--I assumed basic safeguards were in place to ensure that chemicals widely used in household products were first determined to be safe. Sadly, this assumption is false.

A new report, issued today by the Government Accountability Office, shows that most chemicals used in consumer products today have never undergone any Federal safety review. Further, the report demonstrates that EPA lacks the necessary legal tools to protect our children from harmful chemicals. The report, which I requested along with Senators Lautenberg and Leahy, is titled ``Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program.''

To all people who care about our children's health, GAO's conclusions should be a call to action. Three findings merit particular attention.

First, GAO found that ``EPA does not routinely assess the human health and environmental risks of existing chemicals and faces challenges obtaining the information necessary to do so.'' For example, the Agency has required testing for fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals used in commerce since EPA began reviewing chemicals in 1979.

Additionally, GAO found that ``EPA's reviews of new chemicals provide limited assurance that health and environmental risks are identified before the chemicals enter commerce.'' According to the report, chemical companies generally do not test new chemicals for toxicity or gauge human exposure levels before they are submitted for EPA review, forcing the Agency to rely on predictive modeling that ``does not ensure that the chemicals' risks are fully assessed before they enter commerce.''

Finally, even when EPA has toxicity and exposure information on chemicals showing significant health risks, GAO found that the Agency has difficulty overcoming the legal hurdles needed to take action. As a result, in almost three decades, EPA has issued regulations to ban or limit the production or restrict the use of only five chemicals.

Our toxic ignorance would be less alarming if it wasn't coupled with overwhelming evidence of widespread human exposure. Study after study-- including those by the Centers for Disease Control--have found a cocktail of synthetic chemicals in the blood and tissue of most people tested. For example, bio-monitoring studies have found Bisphenyl A, a chemical used in plastic baby pacifiers, water bottles, and food and beverage containers, in 95 percent of people tested. Similarly, chemicals such as P-FOA, which is used in non-stick Teflon pans, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants, are regularly found in breast milk and fetal liver tissue.

To be clear, the health effects of these chemicals are unknown. Unknown because no one is required to look. We do know, however, that most of us are carrying in our bodies dozens--if not hundreds--of synthetic chemicals to which our grandparents were never exposed. We also know that the incidence of certain cancers and neurological and developmental disorders linked to chemical exposure are on the rise.

The Kid Safe Chemical Act would fundamentally overhaul the nation's chemical management framework. First, it would protect kids by requiring chemical manufacturers to perform basic testing of their products. Second, it would reduce our toxic ignorance by providing much needed hazard and exposure information to EPA and the public. Third, using a science based, worst-first priority system, EPA would be required to determine the safety of 300 chemicals within the next five years. By 2020, all chemicals distributed in commerce would need to meet the safety standard.

To avoid imposing an undue burden on industry, the Kid Safe Chemicals Act relies on essentially the same safety standard as the Food Quality Protection Act, which passed the Gingrich-Lott Congress unanimously and which chemical manufacturers themselves have complied with for the past decade. In short, chemical manufacturers would need to establish to EPA that there was ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' before distributing their chemicals in commerce. A ten-fold safety factor would be built in to account for the unique sensitivity of children.

Finally, the Kid Safe Chemicals Act encourages innovation of less toxic chemicals by removing existing disincentives and initiating a safer alternatives and green chemistry program.

As a result, the bill has been endorsed by a wide array of public health groups, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, the Center for Children's Environmental Health, and the American Public Health Association.

I believe that the Kid Safe Chemicals Act represents a rational, common sense approach to reducing children's exposure to toxic chemicals.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child, Worker and Consumer Safe Chemicals Act of 2005. Senators Jeffords, Boxer, Kerry, Corzine, Clinton and Kennedy are cosponsors of this legislation.

Every day, Americans use household products that contain hundreds of chemicals. Most people assume that those chemicals have been proven safe for their families and children. Unfortunately, that assumption is wrong. Many chemicals that have been in use for decades have never been tested for their health effects.

Over 40 years ago Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring, warned about the danger of using chemicals that had not been fully tested. Today, nearly all of those same chemicals are still being used--yet to this day most of them have never been tested for their health effects.

Many of these chemicals perform amazing services and make our lives easier. But in recent years study after study has raised concerns about some of the chemicals that are used in thousands of products.

For instance, take the common baby bottle. Many baby bottles contain the chemical ``Bisphenol A'' which at very low doses has been shown to affect reproduction, the immune system, brain chemistry, behavior and more. How great is the risk of using Bisphenol A in baby bottles, water bottles and other everyday products? The answer is ``we don't know.''

Mothers have every right to expect their babies to be safe from exposure to toxic chemicals--before and after birth. We have laws to make sure that pesticides and medicines are safe--and even toys. But we fail to require similar assessments for the chemicals used in baby bottles, water bottles, food packages and thousands of other products. This is inexcusable.

But the current law, known as ``Toxic Substances Control Act'' (TSCA) actually sets up roadblocks to EPA getting the vital information it needs to determine whether these chemicals are safe. So last year, I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess TSCA to determine how effective it has been in doing the job of protecting public health and the environment.

In the GAO report released today, Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program, we learn that TSCA is such an ineffective and burdensome law that it often fails to protect our children, workers and the general population from exposure to carcinogens such as asbestos-- for which there is no safe level of exposure.

According to the GAO, only five chemicals that existed 29 years ago when Congress passed TSCA have ever been restricted by EPA. In 29 years, the agency has formally requested health and environmental effects information on just 200 chemicals--out of about 80,000.

The GAO reports, ``EPA does not routinely assess existing chemicals and has limited information on their health and environmental risks.'' It adds, ``EPA lacks sufficient data to ensure that potential health and environmental risks of new chemicals are identified.''

Children are the most sensitive population to chemical pollutants and we must protect that sacred bond between a mother and her child. Again, it is inexcusable that our laws require extensive data to approve pesticides and pharmaceuticals as safe--but fail to require similar analysis for the chemicals used in baby bottles, water bottles, food packages and thousands of other products.

That is why today I am introducing The Child-Safe Chemicals Act. My bill will establish a safety standard that each chemical on the market must meet. It shifts the burden for proving that chemicals are safe from EPA to the chemical manufacturers. Under my bill, the manufacturers must provide the EPA with whatever data it needs to determine if a chemical use meets the safety standard. And the bill strengthens EPA's authority to restrict the use of chemicals which fail to meet that standard.

I have ten grandchildren . . . and I believe we have a sacred duty to protect the health of infants and children. I agree with Daniel Maguire, a professor of religious ethics at Marquette University who stated, ``As a principle of ethics, whatever is good for kids is good; whatever is bad for kids is ungodly.''

My bill has been endorsed by the American Public Health Association and many of the nation's leading pediatricians. The American people have a right to assume that the products they use are safe. This bill will help guarantee that right.