Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6532, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the only amendment in order be the Baucus amendment which is at the desk; that the amendment be considered as agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that there then be 90 minutes of debate with respect to the bill, as amended, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; and that upon the use or yielding back, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, without further intervening action or debate.

Madam President, this is an important moment for us, not just for us as legislators acting responsibly but for our States and for the working people of this country. We were perilously close to having a shortfall in the highway trust fund which would have resulted in slowing down contracts on repairing bridges, building highways, et cetera. Six times the Senate has brought up legislation to restore money to the highway trust fund and protect those jobs, but until now my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have put up roadblocks and filibustered us.

Today, at a hearing we held on the status of our bridges, the condition of our bridges, the Bush administration itself urged us to act. I was very grateful to Senator Inhofe for his work. Because we have been facing objections from Senators DeMint, Gregg, and others, we were unable to move forward. We are very grateful we have reached this moment so we may vote on this important legislation and solve the immediate crisis.

We all know what has been happening with the trust fund. First, $8 billion was borrowed from the trust fund in 1998. We need to restore those funds. That is what we are doing today. Beyond that, we have to figure out a way to finance highways and transit systems and repair bridges and the rest with a more secure source of funding. Senator Inhofe and I are working together on that, along with Senators Isakson, Baucus, and the rest of the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We know our colleagues in the House are doing it as well. We are going to have to look at how we keep pace with the many billions of dollars needed for repair. We have to make sure we pay attention to our Nation's infrastructure if we care about a thriving economy, moving goods, moving people, all the rest. If we ignore this, it is to our detriment. We saw a bridge collapse in Minnesota. We were reminded of that today at the hearing. All of us were appalled to see what that looks like. I know bridges in California, in Oklahoma, bridges all over the country are in need of repair. We can't play politics. That is why we have been on the Senate floor. We have sent letters, asked our friends to back off. If they want to make a statement about how to fund transit and highways, that is very appropriate as we write the new highway bill.

What is happening out there is, obviously, because of the horrible price of gas, which, thank goodness, has come down a little bit, people are turning away from driving or they are doubling up. They are switching to hybrid cars. Hopefully, soon we will see more opportunities for electric cars. As a result, however, the trust fund, which gets its funding from the gas tax, has been going down. That, coupled with the borrowing that we did in 1998 from the trust fund, has led us to this day.

I don't have much more of a statement except I want to thank certain people who weighed in to push us and my friends on the other side. I hope they were pushed by this to back off and say: Let's have a clean bill. Let's fix the problem. Then we will debate how we get a highway trust fund that is necessary for the needs of the country.

AAA was very helpful, as was the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the American Highway Users Alliance; the American Trucking Association; the Associated General Contractors of America; the National Association of Counties; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Governors Association; the National Conference of State Legislatures; Midwestern Governors' Association; the Coalition of Northeastern Governors; the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Again, what we are doing is simply restoring the revenue that was shifted out of the trust fund 10 years ago when the balances were high. What we are doing is saying to many working people that we are not going to let them run the risk of being laid off, fired, having to come home and tell their family they can't work. We know that is a fact because each billion dollars of

Federal funding is estimated to support 34,000 jobs. If we didn't act on this and that $8 billion was not restored, we would have lost 379,000 jobs all across America; in my own State, 32,000 jobs. This is not the time to play games. In August, we lost 84,000 jobs in America. Imagine if we had added another 379,000 lost jobs.

Today, through the wonders of communication I can say to State and local officials watching us have confidence that the flow of funds to build and operate transportation systems, to build highways and bridges, to make sure communities are insured, those funds are going to be there. Again, as we move behind this crisis, I do look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Inhofe and I, Senators Baucus and Isakson, we call ourselves the big four of the committee. We have met. Our staffs are meeting every day. We are meeting. We are coming up with principles, what is the fair way to fund infrastructure needs. These meetings have been very important. They are not ideological. They are only business. How do we take care of business? That means moving goods, people, keeping the country going. I can't tell my colleagues how pleased I am that we can have the opportunity today to vote on a clean bill, simply restoring the $8 billion that was borrowed from this fund and sending a signal to the 300,000-plus people who would have lost their jobs, at least this is some bit of good news for them in what has been a very bleak economy.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time through the leader's office on our side.

Amendment No. 5427

(Purpose: To change the date of restoration.)

Mr. President, as I understand it, we are about to run out of time for morning business; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business until 11:15 a.m.

Mr. President, I note that Senator Murray will be coming, and I am hopeful she will arrive shortly and then I will yield, after 5 minutes, my remaining time.

Senator Dorgan is very eloquent on the issue of energy and the issue of renewables. We have no more excuses. How many filibusters do we have to have around this place before we get the other side to relent?

In my State, we are on the cutting edge of alternative energies. We have part of our coastline that is drilled upon, but part of it is preserved because it supports a very robust tourist and recreation industry. So we have found a balance in our State. But we are going to lose a lot of momentum if we don't get on with at least going after the speculators and renewing these important tax breaks to alternative energies, and also, if I might say, tell the oil companies they need to drill.

Mr. President, I note Senator Murray has come to the floor, and I want to inform her that I took 15 minutes and I am going to take 5 and leave her 10, if that is all right with her, unless she needs more time.

All right. So, Mr. President, if you will tell me when 5 minutes has expired from this point.

I am so pleased Senator Murray has come to the floor. She works so hard to fund the transportation priorities of our Nation over in the Appropriations Committee, and my work is at the Environment and Public Works Committee, where we authorize the highway bill every 5 years.

We know today, because we have been informed by Secretary of Transportation Peters, that there is a dangerous shortfall in the Federal fund that helps our States pay for critical highway construction. We have tried to fix this problem many times-- unfortunately, without the help of the Bush administration. Now we get an SOS: Thursday they are going to start reducing the funds to the States.

Happily, they have awakened to the reality, but, unhappily, they have not talked to Republican Senators because last night, when Senator Reid tried to solve this problem so we can keep our construction going, keep our funds flowing to the States, there was an objection from the Republican side. Mind you, we are talking about an $8 billion sum of money that was taken from the fund years ago--in 1992, I believe it was; is that right? Or later than that? I am sorry, 1998. We borrowed $8 billion from the trust fund. Now all we are saying is we need to pay it back so we can make sure we can continue to build these important highways, fix our bridges, and help our transit systems. The fact is, if we do not do this, we are looking at tens of thousands, if not millions, of jobs lost.

Mr. President, I know you come from a State that is struggling economically, desperately needing change. I come from a State that is in a recession. We have horrible problems. The housing bust has affected us, and what is keeping us going, frankly, are solar energy projects, the wind energy projects, the highway projects. If, in fact, the Republicans continue to stand in the way of replenishing the highway trust fund, my State will be in big trouble. What will happen is that funds that were set aside for my State for important projects will not be forthcoming. My State of California, with more than 35 million people, receives more than $3 billion for Federal funding for highways per year. According to the California Department of Transportation, if no action is taken to avert the shortfall, California would experience a potential revenue reduction of $930 million. We are talking almost $1 billion to my State.

California is not alone. My Republican colleagues who come here and say: No, don't worry, forget it, who cares--I don't hear one word about any trouble spending American taxpayer dollars overseas. I never heard one of them say: We are spending $5,000 a second in Iraq on the war, let's bring some of that home--oh, no. But they are willing to make our people suffer here at home.

Enough is enough is enough. The other day, the President announced he is sending $1 billion to Georgia. For a minute, I thought: Gee, Atlanta is in need of some help. Oh, no, it is the country of Georgia. Why? They had a war, as we all know, and we are compassionate toward them. But the war cost them $1 billion. I ask rhetorically, are there countries in Europe that can help the country of Georgia? I don't mind doing our part. We say we had nothing to do with the war that started there. We are certainly angry at Russia for the way it responded to the incursion of Georgian troops. We believe it was overkill. We all agree on that. We all want to help. But $1 billion to the country of Georgia while Atlanta, GA, and Los Angeles, CA, and all our other cities and towns and States are struggling and suffering and losing jobs? Enough is enough.

I am going to work with my colleague and my dear friend, Senator Murray, who is such a leader on the funding of these programs we painstakingly authorize every 5 years. We are going to be on this floor as often as we can to move this, to ask unanimous consent. We will let our Republican friends know. This is not a sneak attack. We are not going to do it when they are not aware of it. We are going

to move to fix this problem every day, maybe several times a day, until our Republican friends relent.

I have used the 5 minutes. This is just the start of a battle I am happy to be engaged in on behalf of the American people.

I yield my time to Senator Murray, the remaining 10 minutes.

If the Senator will yield, I would like to engage in a colleague.

I ask for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the reason I want to engage my friend in a colloquy--I know she has other important hearings and so on--is I want to be specific here. I have just looked at a chart of loss of jobs if we do not fix this shortfall. I wanted to make sure my friend in the chair understands that if

we do not fix this, the State of Arkansas will lose almost 5,000 jobs.

I say to my friend, Senator Murray, I looked at Washington and if we do not fix this problem, 7,211 jobs--in the State of California, given our size, 32,315 jobs--will be lost if we do not fix this problem.

Now, as I calculated, that is six times more people than who live in Wasilla, AK, who would lose their jobs in California alone. So we are talking families, families who need good-paying jobs. I wanted to ask my friend a question, because I see that she has her chart that says, ``Democrats sounded alarm, Republicans pressed snooze.''

This was true in the early days. But I would urge her to change what they have done. Now they have turned the alarm into a siren in our State. I mean, my friend knows the calls that are coming into our committee, to her committee. People are concerned that these jobs will be stopped midway through or slowed down. And when you slow down the work, it is terrible for everybody. It is inconvenient, it is money lost to corporations, it is jobs lost. There is no excuse.

I say to my friend, does she agree now that, yes, in the beginning they snoozed, they also, according to my records, launched five filibusters against fixing this problem? So even then it was a little more aggressive than snoozing. And if we put that into the context of five filibusters, that is 5 of 92 filibusters the Republicans have launched this Congress.

So when we come back and we debate change versus the status quo, I say to the American people and ask my friend if she agrees: Are not we facing more of the same on obstruction, more of the same filibusters, more of the same: I do not really care about middle-class workers, you lose your job, too bad, as we spend our money abroad?

I ask my friend if she has this deep sense of where we are?

In the remaining time we have, I want to thank my friend. We work very closely, because I am the Chair of the committee that authorizes these programs and she is the one who funds them. We work very closely with our ranking members. Those are bipartisan measures.

I want to be clear one more time, because pretty soon we are going to come back here and we are going to ask unanimous consent to fix this problem. We are going to be back here pretty soon.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document called ``State Federal Highway Funds in Jeopardy.''

This shows in the State of New Hampshire, of Senator Gregg, who was the one who objected yesterday, a loss of 1,800 jobs. It shows in the State of South Carolina, the State of Senator DeMint, a loss of 6,300 jobs.

I say to my friend from Montana, who I know supports repaying the highway trust fund that he is working to support, 3,428 jobs in the State of Montana would be lost. That is big. That is larger than some towns.

Think about more than 30,000 families in my case, 32,000 families being hit by layoffs in the middle of a recession because Republicans continue to filibuster and to filibuster and to do nothing. It is not going to go down well.

I am glad you mentioned that Senator McCain says for the people to watch the Senate. I urge the people to watch the Senate this week where we are going to try to fix this highway trust fund, and we are going to get this done if we can. If we cannot, we know who is stopping us.

We are also going to work on a Defense authorization bill that is so important while there are two wars going on. I hope Senator McCain will keep saying that on the stump: Watch the Senate. And this issue is going to be as clear as a bell. I urge you to go change that sign now, because, yes, the Republicans snoozed earlier, but now they are in fighting mode and they have raised the alarm to a siren.

And all of our Governors, you are right, ought to be calling, and our State legislators as well.

I want to thank you very much for your patience.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say, I agree with everything my friend said. We are talking about highway construction. We are talking about fixing dangerous bridges. We have all seen what happens when there is neglect there. We are seeing all of this happen in the middle of a recession, where last month alone 84,000 jobs were lost. As we look at the list, we see if our Republican colleagues and friends do not join us in this effort, and they do not fix this shortfall problem, which, by the way, is a reimbursement to the highway trust fund of moneys that were borrowed from it--it is a reimbursement--we are looking at a loss of 379,537 jobs.

Mr. President, I ask you in rhetorical fashion, is this the time where this country can afford to see 379,537 jobs disappear when we are already at the worst unemployment rate we have seen in 5 years? We have to stop business as usual around here. We need to start the change now--the change away from confrontation, everything is political, filibuster after filibuster. The time is now.

So we will be back after the caucuses have their meetings this afternoon in the hopes that they have resolved this issue, that they step out of the way and let us get this work done so our families--our families all across this country who work in the construction trades-- can breathe a sigh of relief. They have enough on their plate. They cannot get good health care; they have problems sending their kids to school; the price of gas. We all know what has happened to our families. This would be one additional slap they simply do not deserve. They do not deserve any of this.

We say to our Republican friends, leave your politics outside the Chamber for this one.

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

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 40th anniversary of Hayward-based Eden Housing, one of northern California's oldest and most esteemed nonprofit affordable housing developers and managers.

In 1968 six community activists, troubled by the lack of affordable, nondiscriminatory housing throughout Alameda County founded Eden Housing. Over the last 40 years, Eden Housing has expanded its advocacy for affordable housing beyond Alameda County. Through the dedicated work of its staff, volunteers, and board of directors, Eden Housing has succeeded in creating nearly 5,000 affordable housing units that have provided homes to thousands of Californians. Throughout the last 40 years, Eden Housing has grown to partner with 20 cities in 6 counties throughout California.

Eden Housing has an outstanding commitment to providing low to moderate-income families and seniors, people with disabilities, the formerly homeless and first-time homeowners with affordable housing opportunities, social services and supportive programs. Eden Housing has received numerous awards for its work in quality affordable housing, including being named one of the Top 50 Affordable Housing Owners in the United States by Affordable Housing Finance Magazine in 2007 and 2008.

In 2006, Eden Housing was honored by the California Housing Consortium for its ``contribution to fostering the creation of affordable housing throughout California.'' The services and programs provided by Eden Housing offer those with limited incomes or disabilities, and potential first-time homeowners, the opportunity to turn the dream of quality affordable housing into a reality.

I commend Eden Housing staff and volunteers for their many accomplishments over the last 40 years and I send

my best wishes for many future successes over the next 40 years.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that my friend Senator Dianne Feinstein and I ask our colleagues to join us today in honoring the memory of an extraordinary young man, Fairfield City councilmember Matt Garcia. Matt, a dedicated public servant, was shot in a senseless act of violence on the evening of Monday, September 1, 2008. Matt passed away on Friday, September 5, 2008. He was 22 years old.

In November 2007, Matt was elected to a 4-year term on the city council of Fairfield, CA. Just 21 years old when he was elected, Matt was the youngest councilman in Fairfield City history and one of the youngest elected officials in the State of California. With a deep sense of civic pride, Matt worked tirelessly to address Fairfield's crime rate and to develop effective gang prevention programs. In his short time on the council, Matt served with distinction and passion, earning the respect of both his colleagues on the council and the youth of his beloved city.

Matt Garcia is survived by his grandmother, parents, siblings, and extended family members. Senator Feinstein and I will always be grateful for Matt's example of passionate public service. Our hearts go out to Matt's family, friends, and colleagues who struggle with this incomprehensible loss.

Will my colleague yield please for a question?

I stand here as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We write the highway bill, and Senator Murray is involved in the funding of it. Both of us are involved in both. I ask the majority leader's opinion on this.

We found out days ago that 82,000 jobs were lost in the month of August.

Thank you for the correction--84,000 jobs were lost in the month of August and our unemployment rate is the highest in 5 years. It is over 6 percent. I think it is extraordinary. I understand the respect we all have for Senator Gregg. He is upfront about how he feels. But the bottom line is, when people don't get a paycheck and they lose their job, I want them to know what is going on here. You have the Secretary of Transportation calling all of us saying: Please move now. As my friend pointed out, we have, in fact, used the highway trust fund in the past to fund the general fund. So this is not some extraordinary moment in history.

My question to my friend is--I want to ask you this, Mr. Leader: Could you please state again the urgency of this matter so my Governor, who is dealing with a horrific budget crisis--he doesn't need this. Neither does my State legislature. I have a Republican Governor and Democratic State legislature struggling to get a budget passed. I won't go into the details. You need two-thirds to pass it. Now we get this circumstance and job layoffs start to go out and the funding goes down--would my friend, the leader, please explain again in clear language why this is so urgent.

If I could ask one more question. The Senator has hit the nail on the head. We do not hear any complaints from Senators DeMint or Gregg or any of them over there on that side, or Senator McConnell, when we send all this money abroad. As a matter of fact, the administration announced $1 billion to Georgia--not Atlanta, GA, the country of Georgia.

Regardless of how we feel, we all want to help them----

Borrowed money. The war costs $1 billion to the country of Georgia. Why are we paying $1 billion? It seems to me Europe has some interest in this. But oh, no, now we hear objection from our Republican friends when it comes to investing in America.

I tell my friend, the American people need to know more about this. That is why I prolonged this discussion. I thank the Senator.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Bruce, a Marine Corps fellow, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 3001.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5057 and that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6456, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged and the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 647, S. Res. 649. I further ask that the Senate then proceed to Calendar No. 922, S. Res. 620, and Calendar No. 923, S. Res. 622, all en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on September 8, 2008, by the President of the United States: Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance, Treaty Document No. 110-21. I further ask consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, September 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001, the Department of Defense authorization bill; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to meet; and that time during any recess, adjournment, or morning business count postcloture.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, in a Senate where recently it has been so hard to get things done, Democrats and Republicans have come together in a bipartisan manner to produce a strong conference report that is a victory for children and families.

I have a message for American parents everywhere who are concerned about the safety of their children's toys, ``We have heard your concerns, and today, Congress has acted.''

The Senate is about to approve landmark consumer legislation to protect our kids from dangerous children's products and hazardous substances.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Pryor and their staffs for all of their hard work and dedication to this important bill.

As both a parent and a grandparent, I have been incredibly distressed by the seemingly endless stream of reports about defective and dangerous children's toys and products.

Consumers Union dubbed 2007 ``The Year of the Recall'' after 45 million toys and other children's products were recalled. Recalls jumped 22 percent for the 9-month period that ended June 30 of this year.

Clearly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not been able to keep pace with the growing market of consumer products many of which are now manufactured abroad.

For too long we have asked this agency, which has a staff of approximately 400 charged with overseeing the safety of 15,000 consumer products, to do too much with grossly inadequate resources and enforcement tools.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses those resource problems and finally brings the CPSC's enforcement powers in line with those of other Federal agencies charged with protecting the public.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 includes a strong ban on lead and phthalates, requires testing of all children's products that must meet mandatory toy standards, and for the first time, includes a public, searchable national database on the CPSC website of all consumer complaints filed with the CPSC so consumers can be better informed about dangerous products.

The bill also strengthens the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority to recall products, increases enforcement authority for Attorneys General, includes stronger civil and criminal penalties for violators, bans industry sponsored travel, and provides whistleblower protections for employees of manufacturers, private labelers, retailers, and distributors.

I want to thank the conferees for including two provisions I authored in committee.

The Labeling Requirement for Advertising Toys and Games requires products sold over the Internet or in catalogues to list any cautionary statements, such as choking warnings, in their advertisements.

These labels would normally be visible when the products are purchased in the store but oftentimes are not visible to the consumer when sold over the Internet or in catalogues.

My second provision requires manufacturers of durable infant or toddler's products to provide consumers with postage-paid registration forms with each product so consumers can be better informed if the product they bought is eventually recalled.

This provision was based on a bill by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky called the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.

Danny Keysar was a 16-month-old child who died when his Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed--5 years after the CPSC had ordered it off the shelves because it was dangerous. Danny was tragically the fifth victim to die due to the faulty design of this crib and a sixth child died 3 months later.

From 1990 to 1997 more than 1.5 million portable cribs with a similar dangerous design were manufactured. A total of 17 children have been killed by these types of cribs.

Neither Danny's parents nor a caregiver at the daycare where the accident occurred were aware of the recall. State inspectors who had visited the daycare a week before were not aware of the crib's recall.

Our provision will provide parents with a method for receiving these vital recall updates that could save their child's life.

I was also pleased to work closely with Senator Klobuchar, Representative Waxman, and other conferees to get a strong ban on lead in toys and other children's products to protect our kids from dangerous lead contamination.

I also want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor for their leadership and support on this issue.

We all know that lead poisons the brain and nervous system, can decrease IQs, and cause behavioral problems, and that it is especially dangerous to children.

Let me tell you about Colton Burkhart, a 4-year-old boy from Oregon on a family camping trip who became violently ill from lead poisoning after he swallowed a medallion from a necklace bought in a 25-cent toy vending machine. The medallion turned out to be 39 percent lead, which had elevated his blood lead level to a potentially

fatal level of 123 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, more than 12 times the CDC's lead poisoning level of concern.

Jarnell Brown, another 4-year-old boy was brought to the hospital emergency department in Minneapolis, Minnesota complaining of vomiting. Believing that the child had a stomach virus, he was released. The next day, Jarnell was rushed to the hospital after having suffered a seizure and respiratory arrest. Jarnell later died. An autopsy revealed that he died of acute lead poisoning from a heart-shaped charm from a bracelet that his mother had gotten free with her Reebok sneakers. The charm was found to contain 99.1 percent lead. Reebok recalled 300,000 bracelets worldwide as a result.

The many recalls of lead toys and products over the past year have highlighted the need for action.

This legislation puts into place a ban on lead in children's products that gets increasingly stringent over 3 years, and that will help ensure that we protect our kids today and in future generations from the scourge of lead poisoning.

In addition, Senator Feinstein, Representative Waxman and I successfully fought, shoulder-to-shoulder, for a ban on dangerous phthalates in many children's products.

Studies show that phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive abnormalities in male babies and many experts believe that the accumulation of exposures to multiple phthalates presents a risk to developing fetuses and young children.

Phthalates have been banned from many children's products in the European Union since 1999, and at least nine other countries have followed suit in an effort to better protect children from harmful health effects of these chemicals.

My home State of California was the first in the Nation to prohibit phthalates in many toys and child care products, and Washington State and Vermont have taken similar actions.

In addition, major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Toys ``R'' Us have already begun to take phthalate-containing children's products off their shelves.

China, which manufactures 85 percent of the world's toys, reportedly has created a separate manufacturing line for products intended for export to nations that ban phthalates.

This legislation will permanently ban three of the most dangerous phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP from all children's toys and child care articles.

In addition, it imposes an interim ban on three other dangerous phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, in children's toys that can be put in the mouth, and in childcare articles. That ban can only be altered after a detailed scientific review.

Of course, nothing in this bill undercuts the Commission's authority to go beyond the specific products listed in this section's ban, or the specific phthalates listed in the ban, in any additional action the Commission takes under its regulatory authorities.

States such as California that have been leaders in protecting children by restricting toxic phthalate alternatives, are protected.

I also want to thank the conferees for working with Congressman Waxman and myself to protect State warning laws related to consumer products, such as California's Proposition 65.

We are so pleased to see the final conference report clarifies that State and local toy and children's product requirements in effect before the date of enactment of this legislation are not preempted.

This bill is so important to the health and safety of our children and families. I want to again thank my colleagues on both the House and Senate side for all of their efforts on this legislation.

We can't risk one more child's injury or tragic death due to faulty toys or children's products. I am glad to hear that the President has agreed to sign this legislation.

I rise to discuss with Senator Pryor, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety, and lead sponsor of the Senate legislation, the preemptive effect of certain provisions in H.R. 4040.

I am pleased that the bill protects State warning laws related to consumer products or substances, such as California's Proposition 65. The conference report clarifies that any such warning laws in effect as of August 31, 2003, are not preempted by this act or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt or affect State warning requirements like Proposition 65. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, however, is arguably ambiguous as to its effect on State warning requirements. I am pleased that we have eliminated this ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized all of the Commission's statutes on this point.

I yield to Senator Pryor, and ask: Is it also your understanding that nothing in this legislation or any of the laws enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission will preempt or affect Proposition 65 in any way?

My second inquiry relates to the bill's provisions on phthalates. I am pleased that the language preserves the ability of States to regulate phthalates in product classes that are not regulated under this legislation, as well as States' ability to regulate alternatives to phthalates, such as other chemical plasticizers that might be used as substitutes to the phthalates that will be removed from toys under this law. I yield to Senator Pryor and ask, is it your understanding this law does not preempt or affect States' authority to regulate any alternatives to phthalates that are not specifically regulated by the Commission in a consumer product safety standard?

I also ask the distinguished floor manager Senator Pryor to confirm my understanding that the third-party testing provisions of the conference report have no preemptive effect on State or local testing related requirements. Is my understanding correct?

Finally, I wanted to confirm my understanding that the conference report makes it clear in section 106(h)(2) that State or local toy and children's product requirements in effect prior to enactment of this bill are not preempted by this legislation or by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Is my understanding correct?