Children's Chemical Risk Reduction Act of 2007

Mr. President, ``Robotripping,'' ingesting large amounts of cough suppressants containing a common over-the-counter ingredient called Dextromethorphan, or ``DXM,'' is a dangerous, potentially lethal, threat to our Nation's children. That is why today I am introducing the Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007, which takes significant steps towards countering this alarming problem.

DXM is a cough suppressing ingredient found in many over-the-counter products. While DXM is safe at the recommended dosage, it can produce a hallucinogenic effect similar to that of PCP if ingested in abnormally high doses. Because many drugs containing DXM are legal and widely available over-the-counter, too many teens have the perception that they are not dangerous regardless of the amount ingested. Nothing could be further from the truth; overdosing on DXM can cause a rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, seizures, brain damage, elevated body temperatures, and even death.

Recent studies reveal troubling rates of DXM abuse. The number of reported cases in California has increased ten-fold since 1999 and experts believe that this mirrors national trends. Moreover, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America estimates that 2.4 million teens--1 in 10--got high on over-the-counter cough medicines in 2005. Children ages 9 to 17 are the fastest growing group of DXM abusers. Indeed, the latest Monitoring the Future survey revealed that

nearly 7 percent--or one in about every 14--12th graders reported abusing cough or cold medicines to get high during the past year. Mr. President, these shocking numbers speak for themselves.

To be certain, this is not the first time we have seen the abuse of over-the-counter medications. As you will recall, we spent much of the 109th Congress debating how to address the dangers posed by pseudoephedrine, which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. We passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which took the important step of moving medications containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and closely regulating their sales. While this move was controversial at the time among those who believed it imposed an unnecessary inconvenience on law-abiding Americans, it has worked: domestic manufacture of methamphetamine has been reduced dramatically and there is no indication that people who legitimately need medicines containing pseudoephedrine are not receiving them.

My bill takes two key steps to combat the abuse of medicines containing DXM. First, it regulates bulk DXM--the powder that has not been combined with any other ingredients--by placing it in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. Cough medicine with codeine is also a Schedule V substance. This gives DEA the authority to monitor and control DXM in its unfinished form. While DXM-containing commercial end-products like Robitussin and Coricidin Cough and Cold will not be scheduled, the bill requires that any would-be purchaser of a DXM- containing product be 18 years of age, a move that many grocery stores and pharmacies have already voluntarily taken.

Second, and equally important in my view, the bill infuses substantial funding into efforts to raise public awareness about the problem of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse, and it establishes coordinated efforts to educate teens and parents about medicine abuse. I have always said that tough enforcement efforts must be coupled with equally tough prevention and treatment measures. Prevention is a key component to solving the problem of rising medicine abuse, and my bill provides robust funding for educational television advertisements, community awareness and prevention programs, and targeted grants made available to local community coalitions to develop comprehensive strategies to reverse the rise in medicine abuse in a particular community.

Senators Grassley, Durbin, and Feinstein are original cosponsors of the legislation. The bill is also supported by a number of retail organizations including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, NACDS, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, CHPA, and the Food Marketing Institute, FMI. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, CADCA, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America also support the bill.

I would like to thank Senators Grassley, Feinstein, and Durbin for their support on this and many other important drug issues facing our country, and I hope all members of this body will join us in this effort and support this bill.

Mr. President, one in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that's true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From trafficking of women in Eastern Europe to ``honor'' killings in Jordan to rape being used as a brutal weapon of war in Darfur and the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socio-economic classes.

Around the globe, women and girls face domestic violence, rape, forced or child marriage, so-called ``honor'' killings, dowry-related murder, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation. The United Nations estimates that at least 5,000 ``honor'' killings take place each year around the world and more than 130,000,000 girls and young women worldwide have been subjected to genital mutilation. A 2006 United Nations Report found that at least 102 member states had no specific laws on domestic violence. The statistics are staggering.

Not surprisingly, violence against women and girls has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence breeds poverty. It impedes economic development because it can prevent girls from going to school, or stop women from holding jobs or inheriting property, or shut down access to critical health care for themselves and their children. We can't eradicate poverty and disease unless we prevent and respond to the violence women face in their own homes and communities. We cannot truly empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence.

Violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die as a result, but also because inequality and violence interfere with current efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Forced sex increases vulnerability to HIV/AIDS transmission, in part, because condoms are not likely to be used. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV/AIDS between the ages 18 and 24.

The picture is grim, and can be discouraging. But the good news is that local and international organizations are working in communities around the world with courage, sensitivity and great success to help women overcome violence at home, in school and at work. But they need our help.

We've made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, in 1994. That important work continues. But we cannot ignore the devastation wrought by violence in every corner of the globe. Now is the time to turn our attention to women in other parts of the world--women whose lives are devastated by poverty, political and civic exclusion, disease, and violence. Gender-based violence contributes to the poverty, inequality and instability that threaten peace. Addressing it isn't just moral; it is also smart.

So today, during this final week of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am introducing with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, the International Violence Against Women Act. This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would integrate efforts to end gender-based violence into all existing, appropriate U.S. foreign assistance programs.

The International Violence Against Women Act has three main components. First, the bill reorganizes and rejuvenates the gender- related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office--the ``Office for

Women's Global Initiatives'', directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary. The Coordinator of the Office or Women's Global Initiatives, the ``Coordinator'', will be charged with monitoring, coordinating, and organizing all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deals with women's issues, including gender-based violence. Additionally, my bill creates a new Office of Women's Global Development at the United States Agency for International Development, also to be directed by a Senate-confirmed nominee. The Director will be responsible for addressing gender-based violence and integrating gender into U.S. government assistance programs. The Director will work closely with the Coordinator and the Secretary of State to implement the provisions of the IVAWA legislation.

Under the current organizational scheme, projects addressing violence against women, either primarily or tangentially, are spread throughout the State Department and USAID without a central inventory, game plan or leader. My bill will raise the profile of women's issues generally at the State Department, and ensure that gender-based violence programs are building on past successes, leveraging core competencies and working in conjunction with other initiatives.

Second, the International Violence Against Women Act mandates creation of a 5-year, comprehensive strategy, with coordinated programming, to prevent and respond to violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. The act creates a dedicated funding stream of $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system--everything from drafting laws on domestic violence, to enhancing women's access to property and inheritance rights, to reforming police practices--health care, girls' access to education and school safety, women's access to employment and financial resources, and public awareness campaigns that change social norms.

I know from my experience in Delaware that coordinating community responses in towns and cities has made all the difference in fighting domestic violence and rape. I applied those same principles of coordination and joint programming to the International Violence Against Women Act. International experts agree on the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach that brings governments and nongovernmental organizations to the table to create sustainable infrastructure. To be clear, the International Violence Against Women Act is not asking countries to reinvent the wheel. At every step our strategy will lead to coordination of efforts to have the greatest possible impact. This type of effective, cost-efficient, gender-based violence programming already exists and is taking place in pockets all around the globe. We have the blueprints; my Act would provide the momentum and support for a full-scale international priority.

Finally, as the recent reports from the Congo make tragically clear, in situations of humanitarian crises, conflict and post-conflict operations, women and girls are vulnerable to horrific acts of violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls in exchange for token food items, or women subjected to unimaginable brutality and torture as a tactic of war are shocking in number and inhumanity. The Act requires training, reporting mechanisms and other measures for those who are working directly with or protecting refugees and other vulnerable populations. The act also requires that the State Department identify ``critical outbreaks'' in which violence against women and girls is being used as a weapon of intimidation and abuse in armed conflict or war, or is escalating in an environment of impunity, and to take emergency measures to respond to the outbreaks.

The issue of violence against women and girls is complex and our legislation is a bold and ambitious plan. There are limitations on the United States' power to ``fix'' a problem that is so widespread. We are mindful that no country has a perfect record or all the answers. Yet Congress has a long and proud history of tackling complex international problems, most recently the devastating epidemic of HIV/AIDS and the insidious crime of human trafficking.

I did not approach this legislation lightly. Over the past months, I've solicited information from every relevant office in the State Department, USAID and the Department of Justice that works on the issues of women's rights and gender-based violence abroad. I asked for input and information from the United Nations secretariat, and many of its subsidiary agencies who are working to prevent and respond to gender-based violence internationally in various capacities. And most importantly, the International Violence Against Women Act was drafted with the insight and expertise of over 100 nongovernmental organizations and 40 women's groups around the globe, including American Refugee Committee, Amnesty International, CARE, Christian Children's Fund, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Global AIDS Alliance, Human Rights Watch, Inter-Agency Gender Working Group, IGWAG, International Rescue Committee, International Justice Mission, Women's Edge Coalition, Vital Voices Global Partnership and many others. I thank all of them for their invaluable assistance and perseverance as this bill came together.

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equity, development and peace.'' I could not agree more. My International Violence Against Women Act marshals together, for the first time, coordinated American resources, good will and leadership to address this global issue. I believe the time is now for the U.S. to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures.

Over the past 30 years, the understanding of human rights and violence against women has metamorphosed. A State's responsibility to protect women from violence has evolved--what was once seen largely as a private, family or cultural matter is now understood by the international community as a violation of basic human rights. Violence against women is a legal wrong. It cannot be excused or justified or ignored. It is an engrained social norm but one that we can dismantle over time--one woman at a time--with patience, creativity and sustained political will. The International Violence Against Women Act is the first step.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Biden, in introducing the Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007. As senior members of the U.S. Senate, and as chairman and co- chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, we have seen firsthand how trends in drug abuse have changed over the years and we have worked to provide effective solutions to the drug problem whether the matter is foreign or domestic.

Together, we have been monitoring the recent reports in the media and in the health community detailing new and emerging trends in drug abuse among teens. The reports have established that the fastest rising area of drug abuse among teens is the abuse of prescription drugs that are available in the drug cabinets of parents, family, and friends. These reports indicate that there is also a trend among teens to abuse nonprescription cough and cold medicines that are available without a prescription, over the counter, OTC, at pharmacies and grocery stores across the country. These trends highlight a new danger to America's youth as these products are readily available and are often times perceived to be safe even if used outside their intended use. We cannot afford to ignore this trend and need to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our kids. If we don't address this problem now, the use of prescription drugs and OTC cough and cold medicines could become more prevalent than the use of traditional illegal narcotics such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.

To illustrate this point, the 2006 University of Michigan annual survey of U.S. adolescents found that while illicit drug use among teens is down, use and abuse of prescription drugs remains high. This includes the abuse of powerful painkillers such as OxyContin and Vicodin. Another survey by the Partnership for a Drug Free America released just last year also found similar results stating that 1 in 5 teens admitted to abusing prescription drugs.

These surveys also included new questions on nonprescription drugs. The University of Michigan survey found that nearly 1 in 14 12th grade students had used nonprescription drugs to get high. The Partnership for a Drug Free America also found that nearly 10 percent of teens have abused cold and cough medicines that contain dextromethorphan or DXM, the active ingredient in OTC cough suppressants. Taken together, these surveys are further evidence that abuse of both prescription and nonprescription OTC drugs is more common than abuse of many illicit drugs. As such, it is our duty to ensure that the laws on the books are adequate to address the new trends in drug abuse.

Of particular concern to me is the abuse of medicines that are available OTC because of how prevalent these products are. Further, many parents may not know about the abuse of such products. For instance, many parents have never heard of dextromethorphan or DXM and are unaware that there is a problem with the abuse of this drug. For those unfamiliar, DXM is the main active ingredient in a number of OTC products, primarily in cough medicines. DXM is the active ingredient and is generally available in two forms, a ``finished dosage form'' and an ``unfinished dosage form''. Finished dosage form means a product contains DXM and other inactive ingredients that are approved for human use, such as cough and cold syrups and pills. Unfinished dosage form refers to the raw chemical DXM in any concentrated amount that is not in finished dosage form for consumption. Unfinished DXM is generally not available at local pharmacies and grocery stores; however, it is available over the Internet and finding its way into our communities. Because both forms, finished and unfinished, are readily available to teens, we need to ensure that reasonable controls are put in place to ensure that access to DXM is limited to those who need the products for true medicinal purposes.

So why regulate DXM at all? Aside from the increasing number of teens abusing the product, the potential dangers are cause enough. Abuse of DXM produces a hallucinogenic effect similar to that of PCP or LSD. To get this effect, teens must often ingest large quantities of DXM and given the uncertain dosage to reach this hallucinogenic effect, overdosing on the product is a real danger. If an overdose occurs, the effects can include an irregular heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, seizures, brain damage, and even death. In fact, both the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMSHA, have posted warnings about the abuse of DXM in OTC finished dosage form and the unfinished dosage powdered form that kids are obtaining over the Internet.

Because of these dangers that abuse and overdose pose, we are here today introducing legislation that will place reasonable restrictions on the sale of DXM. The Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007 strikes the appropriate balance of regulating access to DXM and products that contain DXM for those under 18 years old while making sure these products remain available for those who have a legitimate medical need.

First, our legislation will regulate the sale of unfinished DXM by placing it on Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. This is the tier of the controlled substances list that currently

regulates other forms of cough syrup that contains codeine. As a Schedule V product, DXM will be regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and will allow the Attorney General to regulate the sale of unfinished DXM over the Internet.

Second, the legislation provides civil penalties for retailers who knowingly or intentionally sell DXM in finished dosage form to an individual under the age of 18. This requirement will ensure that stores and retailers sell products containing DXM in a responsible manner. However, to ensure that retailers are not improperly fined, the bill contains an affirmative defense for those who are presented false or fraudulent identification. The bill also provides the Attorney General the authority to tier the scheduled fines to reduce the penalties for retailers who provide an effective employee training program.

Lastly, this legislation provides vital funding to three important programs for the prevention of abuse of prescription and nonprescription drugs. The legislation authorizes funding to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign for education to children under age 18 about the dangers of prescription and OTC drug abuse. I have been an outspoken critic about the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign's latest efforts; however, there is a clear need for further education to parents and communities across the country about the dangers of prescription drug abuse and the abuse of nonprescription drugs such as DXM. These funds should help provide an immediate impact in informing parents of the danger that can be found in a medicine cabinet at home.

This bill also authorizes funding for the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, CADCA, to provide education to children under 18 about prescription and OTC drug abuse. It also creates a small federal grant program under SAMHSA at the Department of Health and Human Services to provide communities across the country funding if they demonstrate a major prescription or OTC drug problem and have an effective strategy to deal with that problem.

This legislation is part of an ongoing effort to prevent the abuse of DXM, along with other nonprescription and prescription drugs. This legislation is supported by number of groups including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, NACDS, the Food Marketing Institute, FMI, their member organizations, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America among others. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and help prevent the abuse of prescription and OTC drugs.

Mr. President, we have seen an increasing amount of attention on the growing problem of community and hospital-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infections. The CDC estimates that in 2005 in the U.S., 94,000 people developed an invasive drug-resistant staph infection. Out of 94,000 infections, researchers found that more than half were acquired in the health care system--people who had recently had surgery or were on kidney dialysis, for example. Nearly 19,000 Americans die, often needlessly, from these infections every year. This is more than the number of people who died from HIV/AIDS, homicide, emphysema, or Parkinson's.

The infections impact not only our civilian families but also our military families. CDC worked with the Army in 2003 to look at an outbreak of serious infections among soldiers. Between March and October 2003, they discovered that 145 American soldiers had been infected with another drug-resistant bacteria, Acinetobacter baumannii- calcoaceticus complex, or ABC. This outbreak of drug-resistant wound infections among soldiers in Iraq appears to have come from the U.S. military hospitals where they were treated, not the battlefield.

Hospitals are taking active steps to identify and control infections, but keep in mind that about half of the infections that end up being treated in a hospital were actually picked up in the community. Schools in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Kentucky have had to close to help contain the spread of an infection. School officials in Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Virginia reported student deaths within the past month from bacteria, while officials in at least four other States reported cases of students being infected. Most recently, a 12-year-old in Brooklyn died from a community-aquired staph infection.

In the State of Illinois, cases of the drug-resistant staph infection closed schools in Aurora and Joliet. Other cases were confirmed in the Indian Prairie School District in the Aurora Naperville area. Two suburban Catholic elementary schools outside of Chicago were closed for heavy-duty cleaning after school leaders discovered each of the student bodies had a case of a drug-resistant staph infection.

States are taking important steps to control staph infection. The State of Illinois has taken aggressive steps to identify the infection before it grows out of control. Illinois is the first State to require testing of all high-risk hospital patients and isolation of those who carry the bacteria called MRSA. Twenty-two States have passed laws that will give their residents important information about hospital infections. Nineteen States have laws that require public reporting of infection rates.

States are actively pursuing the options that the CDC recommends for communities and hospitals to help fight the spread of drug-resistant bugs. It is time for the Federal Government to follow suit.

Today, I introduce the Community and Healthcare Associated Infections Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation builds on what hospitals are already doing and what infectious disease experts and Government agencies agree is critical to reducing the emergence of these infections.

My colleagues, Senator Obama and Senator Schumer, and I introduced this bill because we believe we have a national responsibility to improve the prevention, detection, and treatment of community and health care-associated infections. To do so, we need to tackle the problem from all sides.

We need better data to understand the problem at hand. The bill requires hospitals to report infection rates to the Federal Government, which we will then use to target high risk areas, identify hospitals that are doing a good job of controlling infections, and do a better job of communicating what we know to hospitals and health departments around the country. With better data, researchers will learn more about how to treat and, ideally, how to prevent these dangerous infections.

But, reporting is not enough. We need comprehensive infection control programs. The bill commissions an updated, comprehensive look at best practices for hospitals on infection control to provide hospitals the tools they need to best address these infections.

The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct a feasibility study on the creation of a Federal payment system to acknowledge and reward hospitals that are preventing these infections. Would this system work and is it what hospitals need? Hospital workers, doctors, and nurses do their very best to protect patients from infection. What more can be done to reward hospitals that are keeping infection rates low?

In addition, the bill addresses the growing impact of these infections--inside and outside the hospital. A new public health campaign will increase awareness in the public and educate people about reducing and preventing infections, especially in schools, locker rooms, playgrounds--the areas where we know bacteria can thrive. Finally, the bill calls for greater coordination of and greater emphasis on research at the Federal level. There are promising approaches to the control of infectious disease--for example, some investigators are looking at the use of bacteria-resistant surfaces in hospitals and other settings.

In a Nation as rich as ours, with the best health care professionals in the world, we don't expect people to come into a health care setting with a broken bone and then go home with a dangerous infection. Our health care system is safe and high quality, and I think we can only improve on that with a stronger emphasis on prevention, reporting and research. Our patients need it, our families deserve it, and everyone of us wants it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys.

This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys.

This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP.

It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP.

It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm.

Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system.

Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit.

While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone.

In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels.

Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA.

Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers.

Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them.

In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6.

My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems.

It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better.

Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise.

Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union.

Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children.

There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys.

This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys.

This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP.

It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP.

It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm.

Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system.

Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit.

While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone.

In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels.

Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA.

Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers.

Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them.

In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6.

My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems.

It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better.

Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise.

Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union.

Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children.

There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California.

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