A bill to withhold Federal financial assistance from each country that denies or unreasonably delays the acceptance of nationals of such country who have been ordered removed from the United States and to prohibit the issuance of visas to nationals of such country.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the bill that is pending on the floor. I am very pleased this bill is advancing, the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill, that involves so many important provisions.

But in my State, I will tell you this: We are very focused on the provision dealing with the toxic toys. I can tell you, after being in the Senate for only a year, it is truly an inspiration to see we were able to get a bill through our committee--thanks to the leadership of Senator Pryor and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--and get it to the floor.

The reason it is so important in our State is we had a little boy who died, a 4-year-old boy who swallowed a charm that was given to him with a pair of tennis shoes. He did not die from choking on the charm. He did not die from his airway being blocked. He died when the lead went into his bloodstream day after day after day. When that charm was tested, it was 99 percent lead. It was from China. His own blood, when he died, had three times the normal amount of lead.

It is a very sad story. But it is some solace to the people in our State that after only being here a year, and as a member of the Commerce Committee, I was able to work to make sure we have a Federal lead standard in this bill. It is rewarding, indeed, that it looks like today we may be completing our work.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you have seen this in Ohio. We have seen toy after toy recalled in this country. In fact, 29 million toys--look at this chart--were recalled in 2007 alone. Look at this: This is a calendar of the various dates with the various toys that were recalled in the year 2007 and into January and February of 2008.

We saw the Thomas the Trains that were recalled. We saw Dora the Explorer, we saw SpongeBob SquarePants being recalled--these toys that are so near and dear to people's hearts. You get a sense of it with the calendar, but this list is an actual documentation of all the toys that have been recalled in the last year and 3 months.

You have things such as necklaces, Rachael Rose Kidz rings. You have the trains, the Cub Scout badges, ugly teeth that you put in your mouth for Halloween, of course, the Aqua Dots that morphed into the date rape drug. You can go on and on and on.

I think it is stunning at this time in our history we would still have something such as this happening. I think many people thought in the 1970s--when we got our act together in this country about consumer protection and we strengthened the laws and we realized kids were dying from problems, with everything from cribs to dangerous toys, to flammable pajamas--this country got its act together.

Well, look what happened instead. We have seen a record number of imports coming in from other countries that do not have the safety standards we do.

This was brought home to us--and it was more than toy recalls and numbers--when a few days ago Senator Pryor and I met with the families of two children who almost died from toxic toys.

The first is Jacob--or Jack, as his family knows him. His mother Shelby came from Arkansas to the Capitol. She told her story in a way I will never do justice to--a very touching story--where she talked about the fear she had on this day. It was a normal day. Any parent can imagine this. You start out. You are in the kitchen. It was October 30, 2007. Jack was 20 months old at the time.

What happened was, his older sister had these Aqua Dots that you put in water and they transform into an animal or something like that. He swallowed some of them. All of a sudden, this little boy was standing there, throwing up and stumbling around. She immediately took him to Arkansas Children's Hospital, where he was treated by a doctor, Dr. Jaeger.

Suddenly, this little boy, Jacob--Jack--went into a coma. They had no idea what caused it. Kids swallow things, as we know, all the time. They will swallow a penny. They will swallow something. It is not a good thing, but they do not immediately go into a coma. He was in a coma for about 6 hours. They thought they were going to lose him because no one could figure out what happened.

Well, she said, just like this, he came out of the coma and he was fine. The doctor was in shock. The doctor said if he had not been there, he would not have even believed it had happened.

So they got him home. No one figured out what happened. She got on the Web site herself--the mom did--trying to figure out what was in Aqua Dots. She called the company. Everyone was trying to figure it out.

Finally, they did some testing in the next few days, and they found out the coating that was put on these particular Aqua Dots metabolized into a chemical compound known as the date rape drug. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you we have handled cases involving date rape drugs. This is not a little thing. These are used to knock people out for hours so crimes can occur, and they take vulnerable victims and try to put them to sleep. That is what happened with these Aqua Dots.

These simple little toys--that are supposed to be pet pals--morphed into a date rape drug right in this little boy's stomach. So she came and told us this story.

On November 7, Spin Master--the company that makes Aqua Dots-- recalled the product. The chemical that is in these little beads could cause children--they figured out--to become comatose, develop respiratory depression or have seizures. Luckily, this little boy survived. This is what we were dealing with.

Then, another family came and talked to Senator Pryor and me. This is Colton, also a little boy. He is a little older than Jacob. Their family lives in Oregon. The mom told us this story:

In 2003, when Colton was only 4 years old, he swallowed a little trinket they had gotten out of a gumball machine. It was later determined--they couldn't figure out why he was so sick. He was having trouble. He was not himself. They took him to the doctor. They figured out he swallowed this lead. They got the toy out of him, but they figured out later that this toy was 39 percent lead. His lead levels-- this little boy, Colton--at the time were considered fatal, but he survived. This led, actually, to the recall of 150 million pieces of gumball machine jewelry.

Now, this is not that different from the story I told you about Jarnell. This mom told me when we met earlier in the week that when she heard about Jarnell, it all came back to her. She spent the last 2 years trying to be an advocate, all by herself--Colton's mom--to get something done on this, and then imagine how she felt when she read that this little boy, Jarnell, in Indianapolis had died from exactly the same kind of charm, these lead charms;

something like that went into his system. The one Jarnell had was 99 percent lead. Luckily for little Colton, the piece he had was only 39 percent lead. But now, even today, Colton's lead levels, even when he is much older, are at 17. They are not where they should be, and they are constantly on alert for what might go wrong. If he has a growth spurt or if he breaks his bones, his lead levels will increase, and they don't know the effect that will have. We all know it is very dangerous, the brain damage in children and other things it does.

The other thing about these charms--and we are very focused on little kids swallowing them, but the other thing about them is that necklaces can also affect teenage girls because they put these necklaces on, and then they are sitting in class or they are with their friends, and they chew on them. I have seen little girls actually do this--teenage girls. They are cheaper jewelry charms, and they start to chew on them. Well, in January 2007, 114,000 necklaces were recalled because the pendants contained high levels of lead, these kinds of pendants that continue to be recalled throughout this year.

Another example: In February of 2007, almost 300,000 Rachael Rose rings, which were worn by very young kids who wanted to try on a ring and have a ring on, were recalled.

In June of 2007, we had the Thomas & Friends, which was the first batch of 1.5 million recalls. This story is one that is worth noting. The Presiding Officer will be interested in this one.

These were toys that were manufactured and painted in China. The RC2 Company, when they found out about it, called for a recall. They were very embarrassed about the safety record. They appropriately apologized to their customers, saying they would make every effort to ensure this wouldn't happen again, and to help encourage customer loyalty and to prompt customers to return the trains, they actually said: You know what, we will give you a bonus gift. We are going to replace the toys, and we will send you a bonus gift if you send in your toys that have been recalled. So all of these parents sent in their recalled toys. As you can imagine, they are trying to figure out which toy is recalled and which isn't. Is it the caboose or the boxcar? They end up sending it back to get this bonus gift. Guess what. This bonus gift backfired in a big way. It was discovered that 2,000 of these bonus gift items contained lead paint levels 4 times higher than legally allowed, leaving the parents of these toddlers to deal with what we call the double recall.

Then, in August 2007, almost 1 million Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer toys were recalled by Fisher-Price. In October 2007, 1,600,000 Cub Scout badges were recalled for extremely high lead levels. Just this last Halloween, just a few days before Halloween, 43,000 Ugly Teeth toys were recalled that kids put in their mouths for Halloween.

This is just what I call the ``greatest hit list.'' There were over 9 million toys recalled by hundreds of different companies in 2007, with a total of 27 million toys recalled.

Yet we have known about this danger for 30 years. That is what is so shocking about this. As we advance in this country with technology, with BlackBerrys and cell phones, it is unbelievable that we would be stepping back. The science is clear. It is an undisputed fact that lead poisons children. It should not have taken us this long to take lead out of the hands of our children, out of their mouths.

It is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's job to do this. When they started seeing all of these imports coming in, they should have done something. They should have come to Congress and said: We think we see a problem here. We are going to need more people. We are going to need more toy inspectors. It was Congress that had to take the lead to get this moving. The burden should not fall on parents or kids to tell if a toy train is coated with lead paint. Who is going to be able to figure that out? You figure that if you buy a toy from a reputable store, it is going to be OK. I think it is shocking for most parents when they realize there has never been a mandatory ban on lead in kids' toys in this country--never. Until this legislation, there has never been a mandatory ban.

In response to a series of letters I wrote to Chairwoman Nord in August about the dangers of lead in children's products, the Chairwoman responded on September 11. In this letter, Chairwoman Nord acknowledged that:

The CPSC does not have the authority to ban lead in all

children's products without considering exposures and risks

on a product-by-product basis.

Chairwoman Nord went on to say that were the CPSC--the Consumer Product Safety Commission--to attempt banning lead in all children's products:

It would likely take several years and millions of dollars

in staff and other resources.

This response makes it clear that Congress cannot wait for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to act. They have had years. They have known this was increasing, these imports and what was going on for years, and they didn't act. That is why we need this bill. According to them, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they didn't have the tools or the resources to do their job. Now, it would have been nice if they had come earlier than this year to act, but they didn't have the tools on the books. So that is what this bill is about.

To talk a little bit more about the specifics, this legislation effectively bans lead in all children's products by classifying lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. This was a part of the bill that incorporates the bill we wrote out of our office. The reason I, of course, was so focused on this was because of the fact that this little boy died in our State.

The bill sets a ceiling for a trace level of allowable lead at .03 percent of the total weight of a part of children's products, or 300 parts per million. Some States across the country have put these in because of inaction by the Federal Government. Some are set at .04. California has .04 for toys and .02 for jewelry. We decided the best way to do this is to set it at .03 for the first year, a year after the bill takes effect, and then, actually within a few years, go down to .01 because the science supports that we should be able to get it down to .01 percent of the total weight of kids' toys for lead. The idea is that, in fact, as some of the pediatrician groups believe, we can do this and we can maybe go lower than that, to trace levels of lead, and we allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to do a rulemaking so that if they would like, and the science supports it, they can actually go down to zero or go lower if they would like. But these are trace levels of lead that are actually more aggressive than you see in some of the States.

The legislation also sets an even lower threshold for paint. Under this bill, the allowable level of lead paint would drop immediately to 90 parts per million. This lower threshold is critical because science has shown that as children put products in their mouths, it is the painted coatings which are the most easily accessible to kids. Every parent of a toddler knows this to be true. On these lead-tainted Thomas trains, you can always see, on the ones I have seen that have been brought into my office by parents who are worried, those little teeth marks of kids who are chewing on these toys.

I will tell my colleagues that people say: Well, what is the Consumer Product Safety Commission doing now? They have a voluntary standard at .06. So the standard is higher. The key is that it is voluntary, so they have to call and negotiate with the companies if they want to do a recall. A lot of our retailers in Minnesota, including Target and Toys ``R'' Us, have been very frustrated by this because they are negotiating with the manufacturer, so it is not clear. They want to get the products off their shelves, but they haven't been recalled yet. So this makes it much simpler because it is a mandatory Federal lead standard.

The other part of the bill that came out of a bill we drafted and which is very important to me--and I think it comes from being a mom, and it is practical--is making it easier when there is a recall to be able to identify the toys.

Now, when I talk to my friends, they say: What am I supposed to do? I hear about this recall. I go to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Web site. I can't tell which caboose, which train. Is it the boxcars? Is it the caboose?

Which brunette Barbie? Which blond Barbie?

Big surprise: They don't keep the packaging. I don't think anyone but my mother-in-law keeps packaging for toys, because she saves everything.

What our bill does is basically says the batch numbers, when practical, should be on the toys. They won't be on Pick-Up Sticks, obviously, but they can be on the foot of a Barbie or on the bottom of these little toys which actually say on the bottom ``caboose'' or ``boxcar,'' and there can be a batch number. So it will be easier for parents to identify which toy they can get out of their kid's box.

We also have put in this bill a requirement that the numbers be on the actual packaging. Even though parents will throw the packaging away, we think that is important because the mom-and-pop retail stores, the little retail stores, and also the Internet--people will still have the packaging. So Target, Toys ``R'' Us, and Wal-Mart are going to be able to put into their computer system when a toy is recalled immediately so you can't sell it through the line. That is not as easy for smaller stores. It may not be as easy for a little drugstore or grocery store and also certainly not easy for people buying on eBay or selling on eBay. So we also require that the batch numbers be on the packaging.

As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated since 1990. That is why what Senator Pryor has done as the chair of the consumer subcommittee--and I am proud to be a member of that subcommittee and to have worked with him on this bill--is so significant.

You think about how the marketplace has changed in these 16 years and what we have seen in the growth for imports from countries that don't have our same standards. Yet, at the same time, the Commission is a shadow of its former self. Although the number of imports has tripled-- tripled--in recent years and the number of recalls, as I noted earlier, has been increasing by the millions, the number of Commission staff and inspectors at the Consumer Product Safety Commission has dropped by more than half, falling from a high in 1980--as my colleagues can see right here--falling from a high of 978 to 393 today. Look at that change. Maybe that wouldn't have mattered if we suddenly had fewer toys in this country, maybe if we had a third of the imports coming in. In fact, we have seen a tripling of imports from countries that do not have the same safety standards as we do. In total, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has only about 100 field investigators and compliance personnel nationwide.

What this legislation does--and we already started, actually, back in December, where we gave the Consumer Product Safety Commission, through our omnibus budget bill, some funds to hire more inspectors--this legislation more than doubles the Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget so that they can get those toy inspectors on board.

This bill provides some needed help to increase the inspection, the research, and regulation staff. It puts 50 more staff at U.S. ports of entry in the next 2 years. Some were announced just yesterday as a result of the work of this Congress.

Not only does this bill give the necessary funding and staff to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but it gives the Commission the ability to enforce violations of consumer product safety laws. This bill finally makes it criminal--criminal--to sell recalled products.

We have seen too many headlines this year to sit around and think this problem is going to solve itself. As a Senator, I feel strongly that it is important to take this step to protect the safety of our children. When I think about that little 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota and I think about the children all over this country who have been hurt and the parents who have lost sleep just trying to figure out if what they are doing is right or what are they going to buy their kids for Christmas or what are they going to do about this problem--they shouldn't be thinking about those things in this day and age. We can beef up this agency that has been languishing for years. We can put the rules in place and make it easier for them to do their jobs.

So this isn't just a matter of banning lead in children's toys. This bill is a matter of implementing consumer safety laws and regulations. It is a matter of protecting kids from more harmful products. It is a matter of helping parents to understand what to do when something has been recalled. It is a matter of keeping customers informed and safe when purchasing products in the United States. And it is a matter of bringing the CPSC back into the 21st century. As I said, all of the toys were overseen by a guy named Bob, with a back office full of toys. He would be dropping them to see what happened and what didn't. He is retired now.

We are moving into the next century. This is a matter of getting serious about consumer safety. We have to say Congress cares about the families in this country. People get mad about the Congress because it takes so long to get things done. This is a bread-and-butter bill, about helping families.

With the bipartisan help of our Senate colleagues, we can pass this meaningful bill that gives the CPSC the tools they need to do their job, and it also sets clear and unequivocal standards of what is safe and what is not in this country.

The current system has been broken by years of neglect, by an agency that hasn't told the truth about its problems, and by an administration that has closed its eyes to what has been going on. This Congress can fix this. The Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act represents some of the most sweeping reforms we have seen in 16 years for consumer safety.

The Wall Street Journal said:

The Consumer Product Safety Act is the most significant

consumer safety legislation in a generation.

We can pass this legislation today, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nelson- Snowe-Klobuchar amendment to S. 2636. I commend the good work of my colleague, Senator Nelson, that we have done on the bill as a whole, with Senator Pryor's leadership. The three of us as members of the Consumer Subcommittee have worked together to make this as strong a bill as possible. I especially applaud Senator Nelson's efforts to make sure the strong third party testing requirements were included in this bill.

As we have seen over and over again in the past year with the issuance of each new recall, independent testing plays a critical role in ensuring that the products on our shores and in our stores are safe. So I commend Senator Nelson for his good work in making sure independent third party testing will now be done using a more systematic approach under the bill.

The amendment we are sponsoring that will be brought to the Senate floor today would further strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act by addressing very real dangers that infants and toddlers face with durable goods. To clarify, when you hear the words ``durable goods,'' what does than mean in a mom's or parent's or kid's life?

Well, durable goods are nursery products that are those products that no new parent can go without: cribs, car seats and strollers and high chairs, the most basic of all children's products.

Unfortunately, what we have seen in recent years, in this past year in particular, is that these nursery products are leading to the most severe and the greatest number of product-related injuries for children.

In 2007, 48 percent, almost half, of nursery product recalls were initiated because the use of the product has led to some type of child injury or even death.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 64,000 children, 64,000 children under the age of 5 were treated in emergency rooms across the country for injuries associated with nursery products in 2003, at a cost of $2.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion.

This figure has certainly risen over the last 5 years. And even more tragically, more than 50 children under the age of 5 have died since that time in incidents associated with nursery products.

I would like to take a moment and talk about one of the too many children who died tragically as a result of a defective crib, and that is 16-month-old Daniel Keysar. In May of 1998, little Danny was strangled to death in his licensed childcare facility when a Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed trapping his neck in the V of the rail.

Danny was the fifth child to die while sleeping in the Playskool Travel-Lite crib from 1990 to 1997. More than 1.5 million portable cribs with similar dangerous designs were manufactured. A total of 16 children have been killed by this type of crib. This is just a crib, a crib that you would put up in your house, and that many children have died in. And while these cribs were all eventually recalled, in 2007, we saw the largest recall of cribs in our Nation's history. You can see right here this is one of the more than 1 million cribs that were recalled last year; 1 million cribs recalled in 2007.

But these cribs never should have been brought to the market in the first place. It is not just cribs. Last year, when recalling the Evenflo Embrace infant car seat, the Consumer Product Safety Commission revealed that 160 infants were injured as a result of using this product. Many of these injuries were quite severe, ranging from skull fractures to concussions to lacerations.

Let me be clear: 160 babies were seriously hurt by a product that their parents bought for the sole intention of keeping them safe. That is why you get a car seat. I still remember. My daughter is 12, and I would never admit she had ever been in a car seat, but we all buy car seats to keep our kids safe. Just to think, for 160 households, it was the car seat that injured their baby. It is clear we must strengthen our safety standards and make them stronger for nursery products. Right now the safety of the Nation's nursery products depends on a system of voluntary standards. And while voluntary standards are a good first step, we have seen over and over again that they are not enough. The amendment Senators Nelson, Snowe, and I are offering would direct the CPSC to evaluate and revamp these safety standards and give them the force of law. It is telling the CPSC, you have to do your job. Revamp these standards and make them better.

This amendment directs the CPSC to work with consumer groups, child product manufacturers and engineers and safety experts to examine and assess the effectiveness of our current system of voluntary safety standards for nursery products. We had voluntary guidelines for lead and look where that got us. The amendment then directs the CPSC to issue regulations aimed at reducing injuries and deaths from these kinds of nursery products.

This amendment is not controversial. Strengthening safety standards for nursery products is a winning proposition for everyone. This language was included in the House-passed bill by an overwhelming majority. It is my understanding that this amendment will be adopted in the manager's package. I thank Senators Pryor and Stevens for accepting this amendment.

I thank the Senate for their support for the amendment I offered with Senator Menendez to ban industry trade travel. Industries the Consumer Product Safety Commission is supposed to be regulating should not be paying for Consumer Product Safety Commission personnel to fly all around the world. I was glad we had bipartisan support for our amendment. We look forward to working on this bill through the day and getting this bill passed. It is incredibly important, the most sweeping consumer product safety reform in 16 years.

Mr. President, we think--we are not sure--that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee may be on his way. I know he has a hearing and some other pending business. I know he feels strongly about this amendment.

I rise, in his absence, in opposition to the Vitter amendment. I understand the rationale and the reasons Senator Vitter is offering for this amendment. In fact, when I saw this amendment, I hearkened back to my days in law school. This is a classic moot court competition exercise on who should pay the attorney's fees. The classic English system is that the loser pays, but the American system has been different. It has been different since the founding of our Republic. It has been a bedrock of the American judicial system for well over 200 years that each side pays their own attorney's fees.

There are a lot of reasons for that system. I don't have to go into the history of it. Again, this is a first-year law school topic. I do think it is important in this specific instance that the Senate not break with American jurisprudence, not break with American tradition, and not change this law. It is very important for several reasons. One is, in this case, if the loser has to pay the attorney's fees, we know who the loser is, don't we? It is the State taxpayers. It is not the Federal taxpayers. It is the State taxpayers, our people. Our people will have to pay these attorney's fees.

When you have a matter as important as the public safety and welfare of the people of your State, the attorney general should be allowed to pursue getting these dangerous products off the shelves, keeping their States safe for their people without having to be concerned about this change in the American legal system that Senator Vitter is recommending.

The other point we all need to remember is that there is something in the world of civil litigation called rule 11. Rule 11 is not only under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it is in almost every single State's rules of civil procedure I am aware of--maybe every State. I hate to say that without knowing exactly. I am sure it is in the vast majority of States. Rule 11 allows judges to penalize a lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. That is a very important balanced standard and balanced process, that the legal system has to make sure that no one brings a frivolous lawsuit, but most of all the attorney general.

We also have to remember, as we said yesterday, these attorneys general are not like some lawyer off the street. These are, by and large, elected officials. Mr. President, 42 or 44 State attorneys general are elected by the very same people who elect us. There are a handful who are appointed by a Governor, I think one or two by a legislature, and one by a State supreme court. Regardless, the vast majority are elected by the very same people who elect us. So let's allow the State attorneys general to have the discretion in their States to try to keep their States safe and free of dangerous products.

In closing, there is a compelling interest that these State attorneys general have the ability to get these dangerous products off the shelves. We have seen this, we have talked with a lot of people about this, and we all know that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is overworked. They work hard to do these recalls. Sometimes they take a long time to do them, but, nonetheless, they work very hard to do these recalls. It is beneficial for the whole system to allow the State attorneys general to get these dangerous products out of the marketplace in their States. With all due respect to the CPSC, they do not have the resources to do this, they do not have the people to do this, and they are focused on other issues. They are looking at present-day concerns, not what they dealt with yesterday.

It is very important that we have a strong attorney general enforcement mechanism. I would hate to see it weakened by changing this longstanding American rule of law. I ask all my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object--

I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the Vitter amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

Madam President, I wish to give my colleagues a sense of where we are on the bill. Generally, we have good news. I mentioned an hour or so ago, maybe 2 hours ago, the fact that Senator Stevens and his staff and my staff have worked through a series of amendments. There are 12 or more amendments in a managers' package. There is language that is being worked on now to maybe add more to the managers' package. Various Senators on both sides of the aisle have had constructive amendments, and all amendments have been germane. That is great news. We thank all Senators and their staffs for keeping every single amendment germane. That is very constructive and very positive.

At the moment, we are waiting on some language on some amendments that maybe can be agreed to further without rollcall votes. We would love to set up some rollcall votes at some point in the next few hours.

As I said earlier, I do not want to say this and regret it, but the way things are going, certainly this has the feel that we could possibly finish this bill this afternoon rather than this evening. If we have to work into the night or even into tomorrow, we will do that. Given the cooperative spirit and the nature of the amendments and the collegiality of Senators on this legislation, I think we can definitely finish today. As I said, I know a lot of Senators who would love to be able to wrap this up and get out of here earlier than they expected. That would be great news if we could pull that off. We are working very hard for that result.

Again, I thank the staff of all the Senators who have been working on these amendments with us. I thank the Senators because it has been a very productive week and a very constructive process.

I wish to talk about one of the issues that is outstanding. We may have a vote on it later today. We don't know yet. It is a whistleblower provision. I wish to inform my colleagues of the goal we had of writing into the bill whistleblower protection. We want to make sure that when people come across a safety violation and they tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission about it, they not be punished for doing the right thing.

We tried to find a balance in this issue. This provision has changed quite a bit throughout the course of the life of this bill. We have to remember there is a compelling Government interest in the public's safety and welfare. So we are trying to find that balance. We are certainly trying to protect the public's safety and welfare. We want to keep these dangerous products out of the stream of commerce, but at the same time, we have heard the concerns and the objections mostly by the business community.

Let me say this about whistleblower protection: I know this has been a source of much debate and many votes in the Senate over the last several Congresses. I remind my colleagues that whistleblower protection is not a novel idea. This is not a new concept. We actually see whistleblower protection in many Federal laws this Congress has passed.

Since the year 2000, Congress has passed several whistleblower laws that have been very similar to what we have drafted in S. 2663, including Air 21, for airline workers; Sarbanes-Oxley, for employees of publicly traded corporations; the Pipeline Safety Act, for oil pipeline employees; the Energy Policy Act, for nuclear workers; the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act, for railroad and public transportation workers; and even as recently as this year in the Defense Authorization Act.

We have drafted our provision based on existing law. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act is the model we use to try to extend whistleblower protection under narrow circumstances in this act.

I will give a few examples. I will limit it to two real-life examples. In 2002, a product designer for a lighting manufacturer was fired after he informed management about the dangerous conditions of certain lighting products, and he refused to violate the law by passing the products on to the customers before they were thoroughly tested. That person did not have any recourse when he was terminated by his company.

We understand, we are very sensitive to a company's desire to have employees who can follow instructions and can be productive, but at the same

time, there is a compelling public interest in the fact that we are talking about the safety of our citizens in this country.

Another example from 1995: An employee of a wire and cable company reported there was a shipment of defective wire. He reported that to a customer because he was concerned the wire would be used in fire alarms in hotels, residences, and high-rise buildings. The employee refused the company's directive to ignore the problems with that wire, and he was fired.

Not to get into the details of that case, but we see that whistleblower protection, if we build in the right parameters, might make sense. What we did through this process is we tried to listen to the business community's concern. There has been a myth floating out there that if this law passes, then a business will never be able to fire a disruptive employee. That is not true. Certainly, we are trying to find that balance. Whistleblower protections would not protect an employee who is going to be fired anyway. It would not protect a disruptive employee who is not a good employee. The employee has the burden of proof of establishing a prima facie showing. They have to make a prima facie case that they were terminated because they had told the CPSC about a problem. The employer has an affirmative defense of showing they would have done the same thing with this employee regardless of the fact that he or she informed the CPSC of a violation.

Also, there is a provision in the bill that if the employee files a frivolous claim and tries to hide behind this whistleblower protection, that employee may have to pay up to a $1,000 penalty throughout the course of the whistleblower process.

We have tried to listen to the concerns of the business community. We are trying to get the proper information to the CPSC to make sure that if there is a problem out there, it is brought to their attention as early as possible. And if an employee wants to do the right thing, with these safeguards built in place, he or she will not be terminated because they are trying to make sure these products are safe in the U.S. marketplace.

Senator Stevens has walked into the Chamber. So far the news today has been good. We are disposing of matters. We encourage any Senator who wants to come down and speak on their amendment or any Senator who wants a vote to please let us know. So far it has been a very constructive process. I thank all my colleagues for their spirit of cooperation today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wicker be recognized at 2 p.m. today to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in welcoming officially the new Senator from Mississippi and thank him for his service in the House and his service in the Senate. Certainly, it was great to hear his maiden speech today.

One of the aspects that is so true about the Senate is every Senator can

make a difference. That is one of the challenges I think all 100 of us carry with us every day--to go out there and make a positive difference for this country and for the world.

I welcome Senator Wicker to the Senate.

Mr. President, I will give a very brief status report on the consumer product safety bill. Right now, we have been working through amendments all day. There have been several agreements. The managers' package is growing, which is good news. We are hopeful that we can have just a few amendments to be voted on and then have final passage. We do not have an agreement on that, but we are trying to reach an agreement right now. I wanted to alert Senators and their staffs that we would love to wrap this up, again, this afternoon. If we have to go into this evening, we can. But the sense right now on the floor, in talking with everyone who has been on the floor, Senators and staff who have been working through amendments, working through issues, we are still hopeful we can finish this bill this afternoon. We hope that is good news for Senators.

We, once again, encourage any Senator who wants to come to the Chamber and speak on this bill to try to come down as soon as they can because hopefully we will get to final passage this afternoon at some point.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I want to again inform Senate colleagues and staff on the Hill that we are making great progress. I know we have been in a quorum call for some time, but the truth is, we have been making very steady and solid progress.

We are hoping to get this bill to final passage this afternoon. There are a couple of amendments that we are still working through. We would love to reach an agreement with both sides to have a specific time to start a series of votes to get us out of here this afternoon. Again, for all of the staff and the Senators who are watching, now is the time, if you want to make one last pitch for either an amendment or a change in something, because everybody has been working very hard today and this week to get this done.

So we do not have anything locked in, but certainly we would love to start this last series of votes sooner rather than later. I have talked with several Senators and they have worked very hard. They would love to see us wrap this up as quickly as possible. I think we are very close to doing that.

Again, we are talking cloakroom to cloakroom, manager to manager, staff to staff, trying to get the last details worked out. So we are very hopeful we will have good news very shortly. We are very proud of the work that all of the Senators and staff have done to get us to this point on this important piece of legislation.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, it is. Compliance with proposition 65's warning requirements would only complement the CPSC Reform Act.

No. First, the CPSC Reform Act bans lead in children's products beyond trace amounts. Under section 22, any children's product that contains lead ``shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.'' While the Commission is directed to examine whether it is possible to lower the trace levels permitted under the bill, no action is required with respect to labeling requirements that might inadvertently trigger a preemption of proposition 65. It is the intent of the CPSC Reform Act to get rid of lead from children's products, not to inadvertently preempt a consumer- friendly and valuable law such as proposition 65.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be added as a cosponsor to the Feinstein amendment No. 4104.

Madam President, once again, I hope I have good news. I am hoping the next time I address the Senate on this microphone that we will be asking unanimous consent for votes or a vote, maybe in this case, on final passage.

I again alert Hill staff and Senators that we are very close. I thank all my colleagues. I could go through a long list. While I have just a moment while they are literally wrapping up the final i's and t's on this document, I thank Senator Stevens for his great leadership in helping shepherd this bill through; Senator Inouye, of course, for his leadership and what he brings to the table and how he runs his committee is fantastic; Senator Collins--I mentioned her yesterday-- came in at a critical time and made the bill better; Senator Bill Nelson of Florida who spoke a few moments ago--Senator Bill Nelson in some ways started this whole process. He filed a bill over the summer-- June, July, September, I am not quite sure. He filed a bill about third-party testing for toys. We had already been working on a bill. He went ahead and put his bill out there publicly and spurred a lot of interest. And Senator Klobuchar, who is presiding right now, has been working on this bill every step of the way. Senator Durbin, of course, has made a lot of improvements. Senator Schumer has played a vital role in trying to get this bill shaped and ready to go.

I again thank all my colleagues for their hard work. There are too many to go through right now because almost all 100 Senators had some role in this bill and have helped in some way or another. I wished to acknowledge them and hopefully the next time I stand up here, we will be propounding a unanimous consent request on votes.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I do have good news. This is similar to the old Bob Dylan song, ``Slow Train Coming.'' It has been a slow afternoon, seemingly, but there has been a lot of activity.

I ask unanimous consent to agree to the Feinstein amendment by voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up the following

amendments en bloc: Klobuchar No. 4088; Dodd No. 4092, with modifications at the desk; McCaskill No. 4101; Boxer No. 4112; Landrieu No. 4120; Collins No. 4123; Klobuchar No. 4128; Nelson No. 4130, with modifications at the desk; Obama No. 4113; Obama No. 4114; Durbin-Hatch No. 4141; Inouye No. 4136; Inouye No. 4137; Inouye No. 4138; Snowe No. 4143; Kyl No. 4116, with modifications at the desk; and Kyl No. 4118, with modifications at the desk; the following pending amendments also be considered en bloc: Pryor No. 4090; Cardin No. 4103; Dorgan No. 4098; Casey No. 4109, with modifications at the desk; and Cornyn No. 4108, with modifications at the desk; the amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that cloture be withdrawn; any remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; the Senate proceed to third reading of the bill; the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 562, H.R. 4040, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of S. 2663, as amended; the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 4040, as amended, and S. 2663 be returned to the calendar.

Having reached this agreement, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, at 4:55 p.m., and the time until 4:55 be equally divided between Senators Pryor and Stevens or their designees.

Mr. President, I have a list of people to thank, but because we have Senators who would like to vote and some would like to catch airplanes or get on to further meetings this evening, I will wait on that until after we vote.

I am glad to yield back all time on our side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I will postpone my remarks until after the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we have gone through a lot of activity and a lot of anguish on the floor concerning the immigration bills. There was a comprehensive immigration bill that did not work. It was something some people thought would be a good idea and, frankly, I opposed it.

But there is something that is happening right now that is a very good idea. There are 15 of us in the Senate who have taken different elements of concern having to do with illegal immigration, areas of specialty, if you will. It happens that 15 of us had a news conference yesterday, wherein we talked about approaching this differently--each one having his or her own legislation, and then you can support other legislation as you see fit.

It happens that there will be 15 bills that will be introduced. I will have one of those, and I will be supporting 14 of the other 15, or 13 of the other 14. So I think the way we are approaching this is good.

My area of specialty, that comes as no surprise, is in making English the national language. We have been talking about this for a long time. The approach we are talking about is a very simple approach. It is something that is popular.

I have had this on the floor of the Senate twice. In 2006, it was amendment No. 4064. It passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 35. Again, in 2007, the support was even greater. That was amendment No. 1151. It passed--that was last year--by a vote of 64 to 33. So it is something that clearly is popular.

Let me explain the problem we have. One of the last things that was done in the Clinton administration was Executive Order 13166. This was an effort to make anyone who is receiving any kind of Government services to have the documentation in any language of his or her choice. It could be Swahili, it could be French, it could be any other language.

Now, the effort to make English the national language is not purely symbolic, as some of my colleagues might believe; rather, it will have a tangible impact.

After Executive Order No. 13166, there has been a high burden on Government agencies to provide translations for documents for services in virtually every language.

The cost is tremendous. It is quite a range. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimated the cost of providing these services to be between $1 and $2 billion each year.

The cost is not the only drawback of the entitlements of Executive Order No. 13166. It ultimately enables immigrants to avoid learning English which, regretfully, hurts their chances of effective assimilation into American culture. Historically, one of America's greatest attributes is the unity provided by having a language that is commonly used throughout the country. It is important for new legal immigrants to learn this language so they might communicate and achieve success.

As President Bush said in one of his messages, learning English ``allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery [store] . . . from cleaning offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own.''

I can't think of any issue we have had before the Senate during the time I have been here that is more popular than this. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Foundation survey, 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to success. We have polling data going all the way back to 1996. In each case, 84 to 90 percent of the American people want this to take place.

I ask unanimous consent that these polls be printed in the Record.

People need to understand the significance. When I brought this up before, there were three objections. They were really absurd. It is almost laughable. One was, we will have to change all the State flags because some of them have other languages.

This has nothing to do with that. This merely says it is not an entitlement. It has nothing to do with State flags.

Another Member said: Inhofe, you will not be able to speak Spanish on the Senate floor. I have given several speeches in Spanish on the Senate floor. I will not go into why that is good. It has been very helpful. This has nothing to do with that.

Another said: You will have the blood of Hispanics on your hands.

I said: How is that going to happen?

They said: There are some strong currents down there in the Potomac, and we would not have ``no swimming'' signs in Spanish, so they wouldn't be able to read those. So they will go in there and drown.

If we look back historically, we see that many Presidents had things to say about this matter, dating all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt, and as recently as a statement by Hillary Clinton in her campaign in Iowa in 2007, less than a year ago, where she said: ``You're going to have to learn English.''

This one goes back to 1916:

Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope [they] will

learn English, but that [they have] to learn English.

Theodore Roosevelt was clear on this.

Bill Clinton said in 1999 in his State of the Union message:

We have a responsibility to make [our new immigrants]

welcome here, and they have the responsibility to enter the

mainstream of American life. That means learning English and

learning about our democratic system of government.

So everyone is in agreement. I don't know of anyone, nor any past President, who doesn't believe we are doing a great disservice by not helping our immigrants learn the English language.

We will continue to promote this bill until it passes into law. It should be one of the easiest of the 15 bills that are going to approach the problem of illegal immigrants. It is my intention to continue.

One of the interesting things about this is, there are 52 countries throughout the world who have English as their national language, including Ghana in West Africa. All of these countries have it except us.

The bill is very simple. I can tell in one sentence what it does:

Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a

right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the

United States or any of its officials or representatives act,

communicate, perform or provide services, or provide

materials in any language other than English.

This is the law of some 52 countries around the world, almost everywhere except in the United States. It would save ultimately somewhere between $1 and $2 billion. And there are the other logical reasons for doing this. We will be pursuing this as 1 of the 15 efforts to have not a comprehensive bill, but to address the problem of illegal immigration. I look around and I see others who have good programs too.

The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one that would utilize electronic evidence for employers so employers don't find themselves breaking the law as would have been the case on the previous bill. There are others wanting to finish the bridge. We will have 15 bills that we will be introducing or we have already introduced. If we can get all 15, that would pretty much resolve the problem. But it does afford the opportunity for any Member of this body to object to any area of interest in terms of these 15 bills.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, about an hour ago, I was presenting a bill that we had introduced as part of 15 bills to resolve the illegal immigration problem. It is one that I have done many times before, which is making English the official language, or national language, for the United States. I think it is one that has enjoyed a great deal of popularity. It has passed this body before by almost a 2-to-1 margin, in 2006 and in 2007.

At the conclusion of my presentation on this legislation, I neglected to ask that a copy of the bill, S. 2715, be printed in the Record following my remarks. I will soon ask that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am joined by several colleagues, including Senators Cochran, Wicker, Domenici, Shelby, and others, in introducing the Preserving Access to Hospice Act, a bill to ensure that America's terminally ill seniors have access to hospice care by providing immediate relief for hospices that are impacted by the Medicare hospice cap, through the establishment of a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal 2006, 2007, and 2008, and the authorization of a MedPAC study on the cap issue.

My fellow Oklahoman in the House of Representatives, John Sullivan, today introduced the same companion bill on the House side.

Because of a flawed law, the Federal Government is requiring hospices to repay the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, for serving eligible patients in prior years. Many small family and community-owned hospices will be forced to close, patients will lose access to hospice care, and local jobs will be lost. In Oklahoma especially, hospice care companies of all sizes service a large number of Oklahomans.

In 1982, Congress initiated hospice as a Medicare benefit for terminally ill patients. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress worked to broaden hospice coverage to ensure each eligible beneficiary has access to unlimited days of hospice care, regardless of their diagnosis.

Medicare pays hospice a flat fee per patient per day regardless of the actual cost. The hospice is then responsible for all costs related to the care of its patient until their death, regardless of how long they remain under their care. However, under the hospice Medicare benefit, Medicare caps the number of days they will pay per patient. Hospices cannot manage this cap without rationing access of care to these terminally ill patients who elect the hospice benefit for however long they remain eligible.

I have to say at this time that some of the best spent money in this type of care is the hospices.

At the end of the care, CMS has been recalculating how much they have paid the hospice per patient and what the eligible cap days were for each patient. This is something done after the patient has already received care. If they paid the hospice more than was allowed under the cap, the hospice is required to repay Medicare. Therefore, hospices are being contacted by CMS and asked to repay millions of dollars used to care for these dying patients. In 1999, very few hospices were hitting the cap because Medicare had strict restrictions on who was eligible for the benefits. As the eligibility and longevity has increased, hospices started to go over the cap.

In 2005, 41 percent of the hospices providing care in my State of Oklahoma received letters from CMS demanding repayment. Obviously, the recalculation is unfair and will result in patients being denied hospice care, and many Oklahoma hospices are going bankrupt. As Congress and CMS examine this issue, temporary relief is needed so that the patients can continue to have access to hospice care and hospice providers do not face bankruptcy. My legislation provides immediate relief for impacted hospices by establishing a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and authorizing a MedPAC study to determine the best way to address this hospice cap issue.

I have been working since early 2007 to help small community hospices in Oklahoma as they face repayment letters from CMS for millions of dollars. Without a moratorium, these Oklahoma hospices, as well as hospices in numerous other States, will be unable to meet demands for repayment. As a result, hospices will be forced to close and discharge significant numbers of terminally ill patients, possibly into more expensive care.

So I ask you to join me in supporting this legislation that will protect our terminally ill seniors' access to hospice care.

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

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, in response to the widely publicized product recalls of last year, the Congress appropriated $80 million for fiscal year 2008 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was an increase of 28 percent. The CPSC was instructed to use the additional money to increase staff, workspace, and information technology resources. In December, the House of Representatives passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, H.R. 4040, by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 0. It seems like that would have been a reasonable place to start. In fact, during this debate, a number of us voted in favor of Senator DeMint's amendment to completely substitute the bill we are now considering with the House-passed bill. H.R. 4040 incrementally increases CPSC's budget to $100 million for fiscal year 2011, requires third-party and pre-market testing of many children's product for lead and other hazards, and creates new lead standards for products.

However, instead of focusing on product safety, we are now focusing on legislation seeming to simply benefit lawyers. Lawyers who, under this legislation, would have higher civil penalties and new punitive damages to pursue in whistleblower claims.

The bill also allows State attorneys general to file lawsuits and enforce rules against manufacturers, conceivably creating 50 different standards of product safety laws; in other words, lawsuits as far as the eye can see. In fact, this week, a Wall Street Journal editorial referred to the Senate bill as ``Lawyers 'R' Us.''

We have tried to amend this bill and improve the problematic aspects of it, and have achieved very few positive changes. I will miss the vote on final passage. However, since I would be opposing it anyway, it would make no difference in the outcome.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, as I address the Senate for the first time today, I could not be prouder of the people I represent. From the northeast Mississippi hills and De Soto County suburbs, down through the Delta, and from metro Jackson, across to east central Mississippi, and down through the Piney Woods, from southwest Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, my native State of Mississippi is on the move, having added over 50,000 jobs in the past 4 years. But we are also in the process of recovering from the most devastating natural disaster ever to hit North America--Hurricane Katrina. With its nearly 30-foot storm surge, its winds of over 125 miles per hour, and an eye that stretched the entire coastline of Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina reshaped not just the landscape of our Gulf Coast; Katrina reshaped how our public officials must approach every quality of life issue in our State, be it housing, insurance, economic development, education, health care, or public safety.

While there are a number of issues, accomplishments and challenges facing my constituents, today I will speak about the most pressing issue facing my State, the rebuilding and renewal of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and the ongoing need for this Congress to follow through until recovery is indeed a reality.

Steady progress has been made, but great challenges remain that cannot be overcome without a partnership from the Federal Government. Continued Federal resources are needed before our State can truly recover.

For most citizens on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Katrina is not just one issue; it is virtually every issue.

Every Mississippian remembers what they were doing on August 29, 2005. My wife, Gayle, and I were at home in Tupelo, in the path of a storm that would cause damage 300 miles inland and in the path of thousands of Mississippians and Louisianans fleeing Katrina. Like citizens across the country, we joined our community in opening arenas and churches, preparing Red Cross shelters and organizing gifts of clothing and supplies. Our family and friends were among the foot soldiers in the army of compassion that responded to the devastation in south Mississippi.

Days after Katrina's landfall, Gayle and I had the opportunity to deliver an 18-wheeler full of supplies to Jackson County. What we saw was indescribable to those who had seen the coverage only on television. Tens of thousands of homes obliterated. Businesses and schools destroyed with no trace of previous existence. Bridges wiped away, cutting cities off from one another. And an eerie silence because of the lack of electricity for hundreds of miles.

The Federal Government's response to this disaster has come under an immense amount of criticism, much of which is justified. But it would be irresponsible for us to ignore what went right.

The night of the storm, Coast Guard helicopter crews saved hundreds of my fellow Mississippians.

Katrina generated twice as much debris as any hurricane in history, but it was picked up in half the time.

Our school superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents led the effort to get every one of Mississippi's public schools open as quickly as possible.

Our business community responded, reopening shops, restaurants, and manufacturing plants so our people could get back to work.

And our citizen volunteers and the faith community shined. Mr. President, 500,000 volunteers have offered help to Mississippi since Katrina, and that number continues to climb.

Over the last 2\1/2\ years, a lot of progress has been made. South Mississippi is not just recovering; south Mississippi is on its way to building back from the worst natural disaster in American history bigger and better than ever before.

As a Member of the other body, I was glad to be a part of the team that worked to produce much needed appropriations and economic development incentives for our State and others impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Our governor, Haley Barbour, our senior Senator, Thad Cochran, my predecessor in this body, Senator Trent Lott, and our entire congressional delegation--Republican and Democrat--were a part of this effort. Katrina was not a partisan storm and in Mississippi, we are working in a bipartisan way to rebuild our communities.

On behalf of a grateful State, I thank the Senate for its support of our rebuilding efforts. In return, Senators--and the taxpayers--deserve a report on our progress.

Housing is still being rebuilt, as evidenced by the shrinking number of families in FEMA-provided temporary housing.

The CDC recently announced that those still living in FEMA trailers could be exposed to formaldehyde levels 40 times the normal level. This news only serves to underscore the fact that while FEMA trailers were necessary immediately following the storm, we must redouble our efforts to move the remaining citizens from them.

The State of Mississippi is deploying ``Mississippi cottages,'' which are real homes built to HUD standards that are free of formaldehyde contamination.

It is imperative that FEMA work with the State of Mississippi to purchase and deploy Mississippi cottages for all individuals along the gulf coast who live in FEMA trailers.

We are also rebuilding our infrastructure. The bridges connecting Bay St. Louis to Pass Christian, and Biloxi to Ocean Springs have been rebuilt, literally and spiritually reconnecting communities to one another.

The GO Zone economic development incentives have been an essential boost to our job creation initiatives. Our State's largest employer, Northrop Grumman, has made great progress and is working to get back to pre-Katrina employment levels; Chevron has announced an expansion of its refinery in Pascagoula; PSL has announced its first plant in North America in Hancock County where they will manufacture steel pipe; and Trinity Yachts has a new facility in Gulfport.

Much has been done, but there is much left to do.

Chairman Donald Powell, the Federal coordinator for the Office of Gulf Coast Rebuilding, acknowledged these challenges last week when he announced- he was stepping down. He said it would be ``some time before the area recovered.''

I say this to my colleagues in the Senate: Katrina is not over. There are tall hurdles still to overcome. And there is more the U.S. Congress must do.

The most urgent issue facing the Mississippi Gulf Coast is insurance. If you can't insure it, you can't build it or finance it. The rising cost of insurance cripples the efforts of small businesses, increases the cost of home ownership, and drives rental rates beyond affordability.

This is not just an issue for Mississippi. From Bar Harbor, ME, to Brownsville, TX, millions of Americans live near the coastline, in the path of a future hurricane. For many years, insurance companies have refused to offer insurance protection for water damage caused by hurricanes; this led to the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is up for reauthorization soon. After Katrina, the most important question for a homeowner or a small business person was ``wind or water?''

Wind versus water. That is the debate which still occurs today in courtrooms on the Mississippi Gulf Coast between insurance companies and storm victims.

This debate is what necessitated the multibillion-dollar supplemental appropriations package this body approved after Katrina, and unless Congress changes the law, the wind versus water debate will result in a multibillion-dollar supplemental appropriations package after the next big hurricane--wherever it may land.

Even worse, since Katrina, it is also common practice for insurance companies to not offer wind insurance at a rate that is even close to affordable. This is driving more and more homeowners and business owners into a State-sponsored wind pool, which acts as an insurer of last resort. But this is not a reasonable long-term solution, because too much risk is being placed in a too small of a pool.

The best solution available is to allow homeowners to purchase wind

and flood insurance coverage in the same policy.

This will not only help the storm victims so they can know their hurricane damage will be covered; it also will protect the U.S. taxpayer. The American people are the most generous in the world, and their elected representatives will continue to respond to natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane on the east coast or an earthquake in California, with supplemental disaster appropriations packages. But the size of these packages will be smaller if more people have insurance.

As a Member of the House, I voted for Congressman Gene Taylor's multi-peril insurance legislation when it passed last September. I am committed to achieving the same success here in the Senate.

Another key initiative we must focus on in order for the gulf coast to continue rebuilding is the extension of tax provisions included in the GO Zone legislation. I mentioned earlier the boost this legislation has given the gulf coast, and I want to ensure this body that it has provided much-needed help.

However, in order for the legislation to be fully utilized by families and small businesses who have not yet been able to begin rebuilding, these important tax provisions should be extended.

Other issues remain, especially at Katrina's ``Ground Zero.'' Hancock County, and the cities of Pass Christian and Long Beach in Harrison County, bore a direct hit from Katrina, and their issues are not the same as the rest of the gulf coast.

With their property tax base decimated, basic government operations are still run out of trailers. Hancock County has no jail, an essential part of maintaining public safety. Mayors, supervisors, and other community leaders now are forced to completely rethink their economic development and planning strategies because the new FEMA flood plain maps will make rebuilding next-to-impossible in many areas.

Ground Zero needs extra help. In many cases, Congress has provided the necessary resources, but the Federal Government's current rules and regulations do not recognize the reality on the ground. The Federal Government needs to be flexible, and if it can't or won't, Congress needs to step in. At some point, as Chairman Powell stated, ``commonsense has to come to the fore.''

My Senate office has been in existence for only a few weeks, but we are already at work trying to help constituents wade through the bureaucratic process to receive the permits from Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that are necessary to rebuild.

This is, obviously, not the first time the Federal Government redtape has needlessly caused real problems, and it will not be the last. But that does not make the problems any easier, particularly when people are hurting. For example, affordable housing initiatives developed by the State are being delayed needlessly because Congress has refused to give the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority to waive environmental regulations which require an archaeological dig for remnants on each piece of property, property that already had a home on it before Katrina. Such redtape does not make sense.

In this case and in others like it, Congress and the Federal Government's bureaucracy needs to get out of the way so the States, cities, and counties can use the resources already provided to them. But there are other cases where this Congress needs to provide more resources.

Off the coast of Mississippi lies a chain of barrier islands and coastal wetlands which provide a first line of defense against the storm surge of a hurricane. According to the Corps of Engineers, a storm surge is reduced by 1 foot for every 1 acre of wetland. Without the barrier islands, the storm surges would be 8 to 12 feet high.

Hurricanes such as Katrina and Camille before it, two of the most powerful storms ever recorded, have caused significant damage to Mississippi's natural defense systems. If they are not restored, this problem will only get worse, putting more people and property at risk during future storms.

Gulf coast ecosystems are also threatened. The barrier islands and wetlands provide a natural regulator of salinity levels, which is vital for shellfish and other marine life to have a vibrant habitat.

I do not hail from Louisiana, but I strongly support the restoration of levees in New Orleans. These levees are necessary for the restoration and protection of a great American city. Our barrier islands provide the same purpose to the Mississippi gulf coast as the levees do to New Orleans.

In the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the gulf region to provide the funding necessary to restore the natural habitats that protect not just the environment and its ecosystems but also protect our citizens who are in harm's way.

Through the leadership of many in this body today, the Congress has stepped up to the plate and time and again provided assistance to the people of the Gulf States after Katrina. It is appreciated, but I must simply remind my fellow Senators that we are not finished. We should celebrate our progress but keep our eyes on the work that needs to be done. When there is a clear and compelling case for additional Federal involvement, I will be persistent in making that case. The people of the Mississippi gulf coast, who have demonstrated such untiring resilience and strength over the last 2\1/2\ years, deserve no less.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to follow the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma concerning a group of Senators who met yesterday with a variety of proposals on immigration reform. One of those proposals was mine, S. 2720. This bill seeks to deal with a very serious public safety problem where illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes of violence are permitted to walk free on the streets of America where their native country will not accept them for deportation.

This is the factual situation where the matter arises. A person is charged, for example, with aggravated robbery, serves 10 years in jail, is released from jail on the service of a maximum sentence, then is turned over to authorities from the immigration service for deportation. Then the efforts to deport the individual are not successful because his native country will not take him or her back. Under court rulings, the maximum that person can be held in detention is 180 days. That means after the service of the sentence, after being detained for 180 days, that person is then back on the streets of America where the statistics show a very high degree of recidivism or repeat offenses.

The legislation I am introducing would put pressure on native countries to take back for deportation their citizens under circumstances where they now refuse to do so by denying to those countries visas for their people who want to come to visit the United States.

There are currently some discretionary provisions on the books which, simply stated, have not worked. This would mandate that procedure. That kind of pressure is calculated to at least ameliorate the situation.

The second provision of the bill provides that foreign aid would be conditioned on countries accepting back their native citizens under the circumstances which I have just described. The United States has a tremendous foreign aid program where allocations are made for a variety of what we consider to be in our national interest or in humanitarian interest. Here again we have a potentially effective tool for dealing with countries who refuse to accept back their own citizens where they have been ordered deported by the United States.

In analyzing the problem further, no matter what we do under these circumstances, it is not possible to compel all foreign countries to accept their nationals back when they are subject to deportation. We are currently examining the possibilities of having some additional detention. Candidly, it is difficult to structure consistent with constitutional rights, which apply to these individuals, and consistent with due process of law. There are some provisions, for example, when someone is

arrested on a charge to be held in preventative detention, where there is reason to believe that individual will flee. So the presumption of innocence still applies, and detention can be held for a relatively brief period of time.

We are also looking at some possible alternatives under sexual predators, where some legislation has been passed, where even after the completion of a full sentence there is a form of civil commitment. We are examining the ramifications of that kind of legislation to be sure it comports with due process and with constitutional protections.

Amendments Nos. 4094 and 4097

While I have the floor, I will comment about the vote we just had on the Vitter amendment and the vote we had yesterday on the Cornyn amendment. Both amendments raise similar issues.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, would bar attorneys general from retaining outside counsel on a contingency fee basis. The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, would impose costs on State attorneys general who lose cases brought under the pending legislation. Both amendments have similar elements. I believe the underlying reason Senator Cornyn has advocated for his amendment is not sufficient for such a broad legislative change. Senator Cornyn's amendment arises from a case in Texas where the attorney general went to Federal prison for corruption when hiring a friend on a contingency fee basis. It may be that the Senator from Texas has a valid point. He served as the attorney general for the State of Texas and has considerable experience in the field.

I have had some experience as a prosecuting attorney myself with similar kinds of discretion. It is my view that before we undertake such a fundamental change in procedure, there ought to be some extensive consideration and deliberation.

The Senate is, by reputation, the world's greatest deliberative body. For those who may inadvertently be watching on C-SPAN, a short statement of the legislative process is in order. The way we function on legislation is that a Member has an idea and puts it in a bill and files it. The bill is then referred to a committee. In this case, legislation involving courts and attorneys would be referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee holds hearings and hears from witnesses who are experienced in the field: attorneys general, defense lawyers, lawyers who have been retained by attorneys general, judges, and scholars. We listen at length, and we ask the witnesses questions.

Unfortunately, you can't see all of those hearings live because they are preempted. However, maybe you can see it on rerun on C-SPAN 3. But those are hearings which provide some basis for a judgment as to what should be done in the Senate.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas was not referred to committee. I think it is a matter which ought to be considered and analyzed. Under Senate procedure, any Senator may offer an amendment to the bill which he or she chooses. There is a brief time for argument-- it could not have been more than several hours yesterday. I was involved in other matters and could not come to the floor. Following debate, a vote is called. The first time many of us in this body consider the issue is when we are en route from our offices to the Chamber to vote.

For those of you who watch C-SPAN2, you will notice that in the course of a 15-minute vote--which is extended by custom to 20 minutes, and sometimes beyond--most of the Senators do not arrive here until late in the process. Those watching will notice a big huddle by each desk. You may wonder, what is going on? Well, what is going on is that the Senator walks in the Chamber and takes a look at a yellow or white pad with a one-paragraph description of the bill or amendment.

There is some hasty discussion, sometimes by the proponent of the bill and sometimes by the opponent of the bill. There is hardly what you call deliberation and not what you have when the legislative process is followed. When the legislative process is followed the bill is introduced. Following introduction, there are hearings on the bill and there is what we call a markup. For example, at the Judiciary Committee markup, there have to be at least 10 of 19 members present in order to vote the bill out of committee. At the markup there is an opportunity for discussion, analysis, and even modification of the bill.

After consideration by the committee, the bill comes to the Senate floor with a committee report. The committee report describes the bill. Senators have a chance to read the committee report or, to be more candid, staff has a chance to read the committee report. It is not physically possible to read all the committee reports and all the materials that come across a Senator's desk--it just cannot be done. But at least you have a staffer who writes you a memorandum highlighting the essential points and have a chance to question the staffer. You then come to the floor on the debate with some notice about what the debate is about.

It seems to me on matters of importance that we ought to go through full Senate procedure. It is my view that Congress has to be very careful in what we do by way of mandates to the States. We also need to be careful when telling the States how to run their business and by telling attorneys general what is best for their State. There are some offices of attorneys general in the United States which are not elaborately staffed.

When I was DA of Philadelphia, I had 170 attorneys. I don't know how many attorneys general have limited staffs, nor do I understand their workload or their backlog. There is no reason for me to get involved in the business of state attorneys general. State attorneys general are elected by the people of their State or appointed under State constitutional provisions. It is up to them to make a decision as to how they run their offices. As a basic matter of federalism, we should leave it up to the state attorneys general. We ought to consider the most serious problems of national import. We cannot get into the details of all the State attorneys general offices.

The Senator from Texas talks about creative ways for lawyers to structure contingency fee agreements. Perhaps the amendment of the Senator from Texas would be improved if the attorney general had to go to court to get judicial approval to hire outside counsel on a contingency fee basis. At this time, the attorney general would inform the court of his office's resources and his reasons for needing to enter into a contingency fee contract. This would allow the matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Now, moving to the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. There is an effort to have the losing party pay for the costs of litigation and costs of reasonable attorneys' fees. It is designed-- as the brief one paragraph said--to avoid frivolous lawsuits. I think it is a very good idea to avoid frivolous lawsuits.

The existing rules in Federal court provide for the handling of frivolous lawsuits by imposing costs on the losing party. Following a motion by the party who is being sued, the judge determines whether to dismiss the case under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Senator Vitter wants to impose a blanket rule, where in every case, the loser pays. It may be that the United States ought to go to the British system, which is a ``loser pays'' system. However, that would be a very drastic change in our court procedure. It is even possible that we ought to go to a ``loser pays'' system in the conditions contemplated under the pending legislation. But that would be a very material change if we were to make that sort of a shift at this time.

Again, we ought to be following the regular Senate procedures. Let Senator Vitter introduce the bill. Let it be referred to the Judiciary Committee. There will be hearings and thorough analysis. Following hearings, there will be a markup and the bill will come to the floor with a committee report. The appropriate deliberation would take place.

If Senator Vitter's amendment were to be adopted, perhaps it ought to be modified on a discretionary basis. The court could impose costs on the losing party if the judge determines that the case is frivolous.

You might have a meritorious case with a very close question. That is

what we do in America with our differences of views between parties. Different sides are presented in court and a determination is made. There is a necessity for a lot of room.

The Senate wisely defeated both of these amendments. On their surface, there is a great deal to commend Senator Cornyn's amendment to eliminate contingency fee arrangements. There is the situation where the Texas State Attorney General went to jail for corruption. Of course, it is more than contingency fees in that case. People who read an abbreviated statement in the newspapers might think the Senate made a mistake in rejecting the Cornyn amendment. We need to examine the issue closer.

Here again, on the surface, you might think the amendment by Senator Vitter has merit to impose costs on the losing party. After all, if they lost, why shouldn't they pay for it? But you have to go beyond that and examine the issue further.

I am prepared to consider both amendments. I am prepared to consider the ideas of my colleagues in the Senate. But I want to do that in the course of the legislative process, where we follow regular order: a bill is introduced, goes to committee, the committee has hearings, the committee hears witnesses, the committee sits down with a majority of its members, and the bill comes to the floor with a committee report.

I know the votes have already been cast on the amendments I have spoken about, but I thought it might be useful to take the floor and give the public a fuller understanding of what we do in the Senate.

I yield the floor.