Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for supporting the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

This trafficking bill includes a provision I authored over 8 years ago--the Unaccompanied Alien Minor Act--to ensure that unaccompanied children receive humane and appropriate treatment while in the custody of the U.S. Government.

Today Congress took an important step to protecting unaccompanied alien children, the most vulnerable immigrants.

I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that these children are treated humanely and fairly. Unfortunately, without this legislation, there would be no procedure to make sure that happens.

Currently, when a child is apprehended by immigration authorities, that child usually knows nothing about U.S. courts or immigration policies and frequently does not speak English. As a result, many are sent to detention facilities--often with adults or hardened criminals with no idea that they might be eligible for foster care or immigration relief.

This bill is necessary because every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended in the United States or at our borders. This bill deals with how these thousands of children will be treated while awaiting a final decision on their immigration status in this country.

Today Congress took the first step to ensure that unaccompanied minors in temporary Federal custody are treated as children and not as criminals.

I first became involved in this issue when I saw the treatment of a 15-year-old Chinese girl, who fled persecution in her country and had spent 9 months in a juvenile jail. She came to her asylum hearing shackled and in prison clothing. As she told her story to an immigration judge, she could not wipe away her tears because her hands were chained to her waist.

This bill seeks to protect children like this girl, who have escaped traumatic situations such as armed conflict, sweatshop labor, human trafficking, forced prostitution, and other life-threatening circumstances.

These children have seen their family members threatened, tortured and even murdered. Many have been targets of attacks themselves.

Indeed, it is through their resilience and indomitable spirit that they have found themselves in our country. And they need our help.

Yet, our Nation's response over the several years has been unacceptable. According to a report issued by Amnesty International in June of 2004, unaccompanied children have too often languished in an unregulated immigration system.

According to Amnesty International, investigators identified situations where children were strip-searched or kept in solitary confinement. Others were victims of extreme brutality or refugees from war zones and rather than being placed in appropriate facilities, they were thrown in juvenile jails.

Most children reported that they had not received weekly visits from officials specializing in juvenile care.

In addition, 83 percent of these facilities reported that they routinely restrained the children with handcuffs or leg irons when they are transported.

One attorney told the story of a 7-year-old boy who had been forced to appear before a judge in handcuffs.

The majority of these children have been forced to struggle through an immigration system designed for adults.

Today, Congress will pass the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act to remedy this by requiring that children who pose no danger to themselves or others be placed in the least restrictive setting possible; requiring the Office of Refugee Resettlement to do a suitability assessment before placing the child with any agency or person; and prohibiting placing children, who have committed no crimes, in a prison with hardened criminals.

This legislation also requires, whenever possible, family reunification or other appropriate placement in the best interest of the unaccompanied alien children. For example, the Office of Refugee Resettlement must do a home study before placing a child into a home or foster care.

The bill also provides for pro bono legal representation for unaccompanied alien children in their immigration matters, where possible, at no expense to the Government. And finally, the bill requires training for Department of Homeland Security personnel and others who come into contact with unaccompanied children.

I would also like to be clear about what this bill would not do.

This legislation does not expand the current immigration rights of any child. Instead, it presumes that children will be placed in removal proceedings--unless they qualify for immigration benefits under current law.

It does not remove the jurisdiction and responsibility for adjudicating immigration status from the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive Office for Immigration Review, where such jurisdiction and responsibilities currently reside.

It does not interfere with the custodial rights of a parent or guardian in situations where a parent or guardian seeks to establish custody.

Like the Trafficking bill, these provisions have received broad bipartisan support. Among the endorsers of this legislation are organizations representing mental health and child welfare professionals, as well as legal, human rights, immigration and religious organizations. It is a moderate, reasonable bill that by and large addresses issues of a child's care and custody, and not issues of substantive immigration relief.

I thank my House and Senate colleagues for passing this important bill. I also specifically thank Senators Biden, Brownback, Kennedy, and Leahy, as well as Representatives Berman, Lofgren, and Conyers for their hard work and leadership in securing the passage of this bill.

I urge the President to sign this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will enhance transparency, strengthen oversight, and encourage responsible corporate governance for firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government.

Our bill--the Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act--will achieve four essential objectives.

It will prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or any of the $700 billion economic rescue funds from Treasury from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving

government assistance provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and, create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill.

The need for such legislation has become apparent in the weeks since Congress approved the economic rescue plan.

Since then, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, which calls their assistance from taxpayers into question.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions.

Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking.

We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right.

The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough.

On October 16th, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Insurance Group, AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby state regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders.

AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected.

Before this bill, in some states virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license.

Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back, and this served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament.

Now AIG, having succumbed to bad investments and propped up by billions in government money, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of state laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place.

Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations.

I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I introduce today will make sure that doesn't happen.

I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms.

In September, just days after receiving an $85 billion federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges.

AIG executives spent the last two days of September on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from Congressional leaders.

As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that-- even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor.

One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.''

Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet earlier this month, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines.

One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms.

But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG.

The Wachovia Corporation was caught shipping its top brokers off to the Greek Isles on a cruise ship for an all-expenses paid luxury trip-- even as the company awaited a buyout potentially backed by taxpayers.

Wachovia cancelled the trip due to the storm of criticism attracted by this stunning display of what the ancient Greeks called hubris.

While the economic rescue legislation passed in September includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed, the bill does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars.

This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving.

The Treasury Department has already approved the purchase of $160 billion of preferred stock in 30 financial institutions. We know that of these funds $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks.

It was also reported last week that AIG will receive an additional $40 billion, meaning that at least $165 billion of the economic rescue funding will be allocated to only 10 firms.

When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion in economic rescue funds, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars.

I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent.

As the end of the year nears, we are approaching bonus time on Wall Street. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay higher bonuses.

The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions.

Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

My vote on the economic stabilization bill was one of the toughest I have taken during my time in the Senate.

My office received more than 160,000 calls, letters, and e-mails from Californians concerned about this course of action.

But, I decided to support the bill to ensure that action would be quickly taken to ease the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.

Our economy continues to struggle today. The money approved by Congress must be used sensibly to ensure its maximum impact.

Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 7.7 percent, and foreclosure filings exceed 680,000 this year, is especially acute.

This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill.

This bill is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise.

I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will enhance transparency, strengthen oversight, and encourage responsible corporate governance for firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government.

Our bill--the Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act--will achieve four essential objectives.

It will prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or any of the $700 billion economic rescue funds from Treasury from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving

government assistance provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and, create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill.

The need for such legislation has become apparent in the weeks since Congress approved the economic rescue plan.

Since then, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, which calls their assistance from taxpayers into question.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions.

Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking.

We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right.

The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough.

On October 16th, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Insurance Group, AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby state regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders.

AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected.

Before this bill, in some states virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license.

Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back, and this served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament.

Now AIG, having succumbed to bad investments and propped up by billions in government money, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of state laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place.

Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations.

I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I introduce today will make sure that doesn't happen.

I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms.

In September, just days after receiving an $85 billion federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges.

AIG executives spent the last two days of September on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from Congressional leaders.

As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that-- even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor.

One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.''

Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet earlier this month, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines.

One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms.

But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG.

The Wachovia Corporation was caught shipping its top brokers off to the Greek Isles on a cruise ship for an all-expenses paid luxury trip-- even as the company awaited a buyout potentially backed by taxpayers.

Wachovia cancelled the trip due to the storm of criticism attracted by this stunning display of what the ancient Greeks called hubris.

While the economic rescue legislation passed in September includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed, the bill does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars.

This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving.

The Treasury Department has already approved the purchase of $160 billion of preferred stock in 30 financial institutions. We know that of these funds $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks.

It was also reported last week that AIG will receive an additional $40 billion, meaning that at least $165 billion of the economic rescue funding will be allocated to only 10 firms.

When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion in economic rescue funds, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars.

I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent.

As the end of the year nears, we are approaching bonus time on Wall Street. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay higher bonuses.

The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions.

Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

My vote on the economic stabilization bill was one of the toughest I have taken during my time in the Senate.

My office received more than 160,000 calls, letters, and e-mails from Californians concerned about this course of action.

But, I decided to support the bill to ensure that action would be quickly taken to ease the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.

Our economy continues to struggle today. The money approved by Congress must be used sensibly to ensure its maximum impact.

Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 7.7 percent, and foreclosure filings exceed 680,000 this year, is especially acute.

This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill.

This bill is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise.

I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 3685 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the Rules Committee and as chairman of the Joint House-Senate Inaugural Committee. I come to introduce legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the President's inauguration ceremony.

The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a football game. This is not a football game. This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been proud because it is, in fact, the strength of our democracy--the fact that all across this great land people go to the polls and elect the next President of the United States, they don't take to the streets, they don't take to weapons. They elect the next President of the United States.

We have all read the news reports: Tickets bid on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, some going as high as $40,000 each. Internet sites today are selling tickets they do not have and will not have unless somehow, some way they obtain them. I find it unconscionable.

These tickets are supposed to be free for people, for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for Members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office, the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another.

This is going to be a major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration.

Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. So we must ensure that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves.

These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. No one should have to pay for them. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. And then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way.

I can tell you what I am going to do. We will ask people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They must be who they are if there are tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure essentially deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No Web sites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim.

This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have.

I want to say one thing. We are working now to see if there is any creative way we might be able to secure more tickets for the House and the Senate. We have followed protocol with exactly the same distribution system that existed in prior inaugurals, but it is clear that there are not as many tickets as there are requests.

Those who violate the law under this legislation, if in fact it passes, would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both. I am also very pleased to tell you, Mr. President, that eBay and StubHub announced last week that they will not allow the sale of inaugural swearing-in tickets on any of their Web sites. I want to take this opportunity to thank them and to commend them for leading the way.

It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation this week. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it on a hotline. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, they are free tickets to be given to the people.

So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously by this body. I send it to the desk and thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the Rules Committee and as chairman of the Joint House-Senate Inaugural Committee. I come to introduce legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the President's inauguration ceremony.

The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a football game. This is not a football game. This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been proud because it is, in fact, the strength of our democracy--the fact that all across this great land people go to the polls and elect the next President of the United States, they don't take to the streets, they don't take to weapons. They elect the next President of the United States.

We have all read the news reports: Tickets bid on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, some going as high as $40,000 each. Internet sites today are selling tickets they do not have and will not have unless somehow, some way they obtain them. I find it unconscionable.

These tickets are supposed to be free for people, for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for Members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office, the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another.

This is going to be a major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration.

Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. So we must ensure that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves.

These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. No one should have to pay for them. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. And then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way.

I can tell you what I am going to do. We will ask people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They must be who they are if there are tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure essentially deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No Web sites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim.

This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have.

I want to say one thing. We are working now to see if there is any creative way we might be able to secure more tickets for the House and the Senate. We have followed protocol with exactly the same distribution system that existed in prior inaugurals, but it is clear that there are not as many tickets as there are requests.

Those who violate the law under this legislation, if in fact it passes, would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both. I am also very pleased to tell you, Mr. President, that eBay and StubHub announced last week that they will not allow the sale of inaugural swearing-in tickets on any of their Web sites. I want to take this opportunity to thank them and to commend them for leading the way.

It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation this week. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it on a hotline. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, they are free tickets to be given to the people.

So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously by this body. I send it to the desk and thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 17, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the legislation approving the United States--India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

While I have concerns about this agreement's impact on the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the speed with which it has come to the floor for a vote, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the United States and our relationship with India and, with vigorous oversight, will help strengthen our nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

This agreement has wide bipartisan support. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported this legislation favorably on a 19-2 vote. Last Saturday, the House approved this agreement by a vote of 298 to 117 and I am hopeful the Senate will follow suit tonight.

While far from perfect, I believe this agreement will mark a first step towards bringing India into the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

For years, India and the United States have failed to take advantage of our shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in developing a closer partnership.

I am hopeful this agreement will serve as a catalyst for solidifying relations with the world's largest democracy in a critical part of the world and enhance U.S.-India cooperation on a number of pressing issues: global warming, the war on terror, and stability in South Asia.

I do not take this vote lightly. As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to stop the development of new nuclear weapons and strengthen our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. I have introduced legislation calling for a strengthened Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I have fought against the research and development of new nuclear weapons like the robust nuclear Earth penetrator and the reliable replacement warhead program. I have secured additional funding to remove vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. I have supported efforts to accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs.

Because of my commitment to nuclear nonproliferation efforts, I initially approached plans for a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement with some skepticism: 8 of India's 22 nuclear reactors-- including India's fast breeder reactors, which can produce massive amounts of plutonium for nuclear weapon--will be classified for military uses and thus will remain outside of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India will retain the right to designate future nuclear reactors as ``military'' and not subject to international safeguards. India will continue to manufacture fissile material

for nuclear weapons and has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Nevertheless, I supported the Hyde Act of 2006 which authorized the President to conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement with India because it included provisions which would help preserve the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Under the terms of that bill any nuclear cooperation agreement will be terminated if India conducts a nuclear test, proliferates nuclear weapons or nuclear materials, or breaks its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency; the President must determine that India is meeting its nonproliferation commitments; the Nuclear Suppliers Group must decide by consensus and according to its rules to open nuclear trade with India; the export of any equipment, materials, or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the production of heavy water is prohibited; the President must create a program to monitor the end use of items exported to India to ensure that they are not diverted to nonpeaceful activities; and no action may be taken to violate U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The question now before us is whether the agreement negotiated by the Bush administration conforms with the Hyde Act and U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

I understand the serious questions that have been raised by many nuclear nonproliferation experts and my colleagues about critical parts of this agreement. By opening trade in civil nuclear fuel and technologies, will this agreement indirectly benefit India's nuclear weapons program by freeing up domestic resources for military purposes? Does India agree with the administration that, under U.S. law, if India breaks its moratorium and tests a nuclear weapon U.S. nuclear trade will be terminated? Will our partners in the Nuclear Suppliers Group follow suit? Why has India not filed a declaration with the International Atomic Energy Agency of its civil nuclear facilities that will be subject to international safeguards as required by the Hyde Act? Why did the exemption for India approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group not include guidelines baring transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies to states, like India, who have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

I believe the legislation now before us addresses many of these concerns. It requires the President to certify that the agreement is consistent with our obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and will not help India acquire or build nuclear weapons; states that it is the policy of the United States that, in the event nuclear trade between India and the United States is suspended, such as following a Indian nuclear test, the United States will work to prevent the transfer of nuclear technologies and materials from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or any other source. It also requires the President to certify that the safeguards agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency has come into force and India has filed a declaration of its civil nuclear facilities that will be subject to those safeguards before nuclear trade can begin. It also requires the President to certify that it is the policy of the United States to work with the other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to restrict the transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies relating to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

And while I appreciate the assurances from the administration that, in accordance with U.S. law, nuclear trade with India would cease in the event a nuclear test, I will support an amendment by Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman to make this action clear.

As I indicated before, I would have preferred more time to debate this critical agreement. Yet I am also conscious of the fact that if we had used the full 30 days to consider this agreement, we would be presented with a simple up or down vote on a one sentence resolution approving the agreement.

I appreciate the fact that we have the opportunity with this legislation to lock in additional requirements and oversight of U.S.- Indian nuclear trade.

U.S.-Indian relations have come a long ways since the days of the Cold War. We have overcome distrust and skepticism and have begun to build a fruitful, mutually beneficial relationship between the world's largest democracy and the world's oldest democracy.

Whatever the problems we will face in the global arena in the next century, we will need to work with India.

By approving this legislation, we will not only open the door to the trade in nuclear materials and nuclear technology--and provide new opportunities for U.S. businesses--we will open the door to closer cooperation on issues vital to U.S. national security interests in South Asia and around the world.

This is not the end of our efforts to bring India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream. This is one step that should be followed by close congressional oversight and robust and sustained American diplomacy.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I understand I have 3 minutes.

Mr. President, they say Senators have 6-year terms so they can take tough votes when tough votes are called for, so that they can vote for the best interests of their country even sometimes when their constituents do not understand it or may be opposed to it.

I have received 91,000 phone calls and e-mails from California, 85,000 of them opposed to this measure. There is a great deal of confusion out there. People don't understand. What was printed most prominently was the original Paulson proposal, a proposal which gave one man control over $700 billion to dispense as he chose, above the law, with no administrative view or legislative oversight.

This is not that proposal. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, both sides of the Banking Committee. It would be one thing if we had a choice, but I do not believe we have a choice. Let me give you an example.

In my State, we have 3.5 million small businesses. We have over 20 million people employed in those small businesses.

Now, some businesses function on cash. Most function on credit. When credit is frozen, they cannot make payroll. And when they cannot make a payroll, they give out pink slips. So you will see, through electrical and plumbing contractors, retail establishments, even grocery stores, computer stores, automobile sales, we are now hearing from people who say they want to buy a home, they cannot get a mortgage; they want to get a car, they cannot get a loan. This is what is beginning to happen.

This is not a give-away. This essentially is a strategic plan to buy assets, both good and bad, to pump liquidity into the market, to be able to free up credit, so that once again the economy can function. The Government will hold these assets. Over time we believe they will make money, and the Government will be the first paid back.

So I think if we do care about the livelihood of our constituents, there is only one vote and it is yes.

This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20. His bill was essentially a nonstarter--startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.

It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above congressional action, and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best.

This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands of phone calls all across this land.

My office has received over 91,000 calls and e-mails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's 3-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits, and other measures to protect taxpayers.

But there still is a lot of misinformation on this bill.

This is not a $700 billion gift for Wall Street.

Rather, the--Federal Government will buy equity in certain assets, both good and bad to pump liquidity into the marketplace and unfreeze credit which is increasingly freezing and unavailable.

Over time, these assets will be sold and the Federal Government will be the first paid back on the investment. The belief is that by doing this the Federal Government will clear much of the bad debt on the books of certain strategic financial institutions, restoring stability, adding liquidity, and unfreezing credit.

Recently, we have seen major U.S. institutions fail: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG. And, two retail banks, not investment banks: Washington Mutual and Wachovia. If we do nothing, more institutions will fail.

Now, you may say: What does this mean to me? I work hard, I pay my bills, I pay cash.

Here's what it will mean to you: It will be harder for most Americans to get any credit. Therefore, jobs will be lost.

And we may well face a deep recession.

California has 3.75 million small businesses with an average of 5.6 employees. That adds up to over 20 million jobs.

Some of these businesses are funded with cash, but most are funded with credit. When credit freezes, payrolls cannot be met. And when payrolls cannot be met, pink slips are sent out.

And this will happen to retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, electrical and plumbing contractors, apparel manufacturers, computer and electronics stores, and auto dealerships.

Sales at auto dealerships have fallen dramatically in the past year. Ford sales are down 34 percent, Chrysler sales are down 33 percent, Toyota sales are down 29 percent, and GM sales are down 16 percent.

The list will go on and on.

Importantly, there have now been several improvements to this bill. First, The FDIC insurance rate covering bank deposits has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Americans will know that their deposits are secure up to $250,000.

The legislation will provide tax relief to working families.

One example: the Alternative Minimum Tax is a real problem. It was meant to apply only to 200 wealthy people, but it was never adjusted for inflation and it has crept down the income scale to the point where more than 25 million taxpayers today may well have to pay an Alternative Minimum Tax.

In California, 700,000 people paid this tax last year. But 4 million Californians will pay that tax this year unless we take action.

This bill takes that action. For 1 year it will prevent this tax increase.

The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill and concluded that the net cost to taxpayers is ``likely to be substantially less than $700 billion.''

Again, these investments are first in line to be paid back.

It must be remembered that there was a great deal of criticism when the U.S. Government bailed out Mexico in 1996 with $20 billion. The fact is, the money was paid back ahead of time and $600 million in profit was made.

Let me give you the following points. This bill mandates that the Government provide loan modifications for the subprime mortgages it acquires. This will help keep families in homes rather than foreclosing and putting the house on a deteriorating housing market where property values drop and homes are looted. The bill limits executive compensation. It provides strong oversight and accountability, including a financial stability oversight board, a

five-member congressional oversight panel, an inspector general, and a constant presence at Treasury by the Government Accountability Office.

This is the only choice Congress can make.

One can rail against it and vote ``no'' on it, but that is not going to solve the problem. We have one chance, and one chance only, to solve the problem, and it is this bill.

I wish I could write it differently. Others wish they could write it differently, but the fact is that we are faced with this. Again, there is no question this is a tough vote.

But there is no question that this is a vote that I believe has to be made.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hutchison for their work on this bill. It is very a good bill. I am very proud of it. I am proud of them. I hope all Members will support it.

This bill does much to benefit rail. I deeply believe that rail has a future. My own State, California, has a $10 billion bond issue on the ballot this November to begin the funding of a high-speed rail down the center of California. So rail can be very important in the future.

The bill has many good points. I want to concentrate on just one thing and what I just learned from the National Transportation and Safety Board. That one thing is that this bill would give the rail administration the ability to prohibit cell phone use.

I would like the chairman and the ranking member to know what I just learned through an NTSB press conference. The engineer on the Metrolink train, the day of the accident, from about a quarter of 7 to a quarter of 9 in the morning, as he was an engineer on the train, sent and received 45 text messages on his cell phone in a little more than an hour. In the afternoon, when he was on duty from 2 p.m. to about 3:30, he sent and received 12 messages on his cell phone. One of them was 22 seconds before the accident. With this kind of cell phone use while an active engineer on a Metrolink train right around the time of an accident, you can see the kind of problem it is. There is no second set of eyes on this train. So this National Transportation Safety Board press release this afternoon is a revelation.

This cannot be happening on other trains. A great deal of our track in California is single track. It has both freight and passenger rail on it, sometimes in opposite directions. To have an engineer in an hour and 15 minutes sending or being part of 45 text messages on a cell phone is not what an operating engineer should be doing on a train.

I thank the chairman. He has done a great job. My pal Senator Hutchison has done a great job. This is a bill that will stand the test of time. It is an important bill for Amtrak, for the rail administration, and for rail safety and positive train controls.

I thank them all for their work and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Over-the- Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act, a bill to establish workable speculative position limits that apply to both bilateral over-the- counter swaps transactions and on-exchange transactions.

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would close the ``over-the-counter swaps loophole'' once and for all by requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--or CFTC--to apply the position limit system to bilateral swaps, not just the on-exchange transactions that are limited today.

Let me explain what the bill would do:

CFTC would enforce ``aggregate'' position limits so that a trader's positions on and off exchange would be combined. Swaps would no longer be exempt from position limits.

CFTC would be allowed to grant hedge exemptions for bone fide hedging. This exemption would be limited to trading that hedges against price risk exposure related to physical transactions in that energy commodity.

Neither institutional investors hedging against inflation, nor swaps dealers hedging their secret dealings would qualify for a hedge exemption.

The bill would give CFTC the power to issue civil fines to enforce position limits when unwinding a speculative position would be disruptive to the marketplace.

This legislation is the missing piece to otherwise comprehensive anti-speculation legislation debated in the Senate in July and adopted by the House of Representatives in September.

Both of the House and Senate bills included vital provisions to protect our markets, including provisions to close the London Loophole by imposing speculation position limits on trading conducted on Foreign Boards of Trade.

It would grant CFTC the authority to collect data and monitor trading in Over-the-Counter Swaps markets, shining the bright light of oversight onto a previously un-watched market.

It would improve the data collection systems at CFTC to distinguish between swaps dealers, institutional investors, and genuine speculators;

It would assure no true speculator is exempted from speculative position limits; and increase CFTC's staffing levels.

Reacting to congressional pressure, the CFTC took many of the steps through administrative action that our bills in Congress would have required.

CFTC largely closed the London Loophole and began monitoring London trading of American crude oil.

CFTC began collecting detailed data on OTC swaps trading, especially by swaps dealers and institutional index traders, and it began monitoring these markets.

CFTC reclassified a major swaps dealer as a speculator and proposed a rulemaking to revise its system for granting speculative limit exemptions.

This is true progress, but the swaps loophole--exempting voice brokered bilateral swaps from the speculative position limit system-- remains in place. Traders are able to hold positions far above speculative position limits simply by executing their trades through a voice broker.

Until this summer, the Federal Government knew very little about OTC swaps, which have been exempt from CFTC oversight since 1993. But thanks to CFTC's increased oversight this summer, published in its September 2008 ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders,'' we know that traders do in fact use these swaps markets to hold positions above the speculative position limits on regulated exchanges.

The CFTC report found that on a single day in June there were:

``18 noncommercial traders (speculators) in 13 markets who appeared to have an aggregate position . . . that would have been above the speculative limit or an exchange accountability level if all the positions were on-exchange.''

CFTC discovered that a few traders held positions that would have ``significantly exceeded'' an aggregate position limit.

What is the purpose of speculative position limits if traders know they can buy the equivalent product in unlimited quantities from a voice broker?

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act puts an end to this flawed system by instructing CFTC to establish a system of aggregate position limits. As the staff report demonstrated, CFTC knows how to calculate such limits.

I believe this legislation avoids the pitfalls of previous efforts in the 110th Congress to limit speculative positions in swaps.

It is simple, granting CFTC the broad mandate to impose aggregate position limits across positions held on registered entities, foreign boards of trade, and OTC markets that impact the price discovery function of a regulated market. It grants the regulator proper discretion to determine which contracts are functionally equivalent and what the limits should be.

It applies speculative position limits only to swaps that impact the price discovery function on regulated markets. By focusing CFTC efforts only on the major, standardized swaps contracts, the bill maintains legal certainty for unique financing agreements and other private bilateral transactions.

The bill also prevents speculators from migrating to less regulated contracts. CFTC will only be allowed to exempt contracts from position limits after it determines that the contract is not functioning as a haven from regulation. CFTC must impose speculative position limits on any contract that: is highly standardized; settles on the price of a contracted traded in a regulated marketplace; has its prices widely published and referenced; or traded in significant volumes.

Finally, the legislation addresses CFTC staff concerns that enforcing position limits on bilateral swaps contracts would be too cumbersome. In recent briefings, CFTC staff argued that the primary reason CFTC was not calling for speculative position limits on swaps is that position limits on swaps would force parties to void existing contracts, which harms the counterparty as much as the trader who is over their limit.

Regulators should not force a trader to break a contract if such action would punish the counterparties as well as the speculator. To address this, this legislation gives CFTC the power to enforce position limits with fines instead of forcing a trader to unwind a position.

Over the past 6 months, OTC swaps markets have been exposed, and it has become increasingly apparent that speculative position limits are both appropriate and feasible in order to protect regulated markets from manipulation and excessive speculation.

The regulated and unregulated energy markets are fully integrated. With traders moving back and forth freely, it is no longer reasonable to believe that bad behavior in swaps can be isolated.

A manipulated swaps market would likely impact the price discovery function of a futures market, and in turn affect consumer prices.

If we want fair play in the energy markets, we cannot continue to instruct the CFTC to swallow its whistle when it sees violations at the Swaps' end of the court.

We need to allow CFTC to call foul when it sees excessive speculation, whether on an exchange or in a voice brokered swaps market.

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would give the CFTC back its whistle. It would allow the Commission to use the speculative position limit system in existence since the 1930s--to reel in excessive speculation in American energy markets.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Over-the- Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act, a bill to establish workable speculative position limits that apply to both bilateral over-the- counter swaps transactions and on-exchange transactions.

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would close the ``over-the-counter swaps loophole'' once and for all by requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--or CFTC--to apply the position limit system to bilateral swaps, not just the on-exchange transactions that are limited today.

Let me explain what the bill would do:

CFTC would enforce ``aggregate'' position limits so that a trader's positions on and off exchange would be combined. Swaps would no longer be exempt from position limits.

CFTC would be allowed to grant hedge exemptions for bone fide hedging. This exemption would be limited to trading that hedges against price risk exposure related to physical transactions in that energy commodity.

Neither institutional investors hedging against inflation, nor swaps dealers hedging their secret dealings would qualify for a hedge exemption.

The bill would give CFTC the power to issue civil fines to enforce position limits when unwinding a speculative position would be disruptive to the marketplace.

This legislation is the missing piece to otherwise comprehensive anti-speculation legislation debated in the Senate in July and adopted by the House of Representatives in September.

Both of the House and Senate bills included vital provisions to protect our markets, including provisions to close the London Loophole by imposing speculation position limits on trading conducted on Foreign Boards of Trade.

It would grant CFTC the authority to collect data and monitor trading in Over-the-Counter Swaps markets, shining the bright light of oversight onto a previously un-watched market.

It would improve the data collection systems at CFTC to distinguish between swaps dealers, institutional investors, and genuine speculators;

It would assure no true speculator is exempted from speculative position limits; and increase CFTC's staffing levels.

Reacting to congressional pressure, the CFTC took many of the steps through administrative action that our bills in Congress would have required.

CFTC largely closed the London Loophole and began monitoring London trading of American crude oil.

CFTC began collecting detailed data on OTC swaps trading, especially by swaps dealers and institutional index traders, and it began monitoring these markets.

CFTC reclassified a major swaps dealer as a speculator and proposed a rulemaking to revise its system for granting speculative limit exemptions.

This is true progress, but the swaps loophole--exempting voice brokered bilateral swaps from the speculative position limit system-- remains in place. Traders are able to hold positions far above speculative position limits simply by executing their trades through a voice broker.

Until this summer, the Federal Government knew very little about OTC swaps, which have been exempt from CFTC oversight since 1993. But thanks to CFTC's increased oversight this summer, published in its September 2008 ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders,'' we know that traders do in fact use these swaps markets to hold positions above the speculative position limits on regulated exchanges.

The CFTC report found that on a single day in June there were:

``18 noncommercial traders (speculators) in 13 markets who appeared to have an aggregate position . . . that would have been above the speculative limit or an exchange accountability level if all the positions were on-exchange.''

CFTC discovered that a few traders held positions that would have ``significantly exceeded'' an aggregate position limit.

What is the purpose of speculative position limits if traders know they can buy the equivalent product in unlimited quantities from a voice broker?

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act puts an end to this flawed system by instructing CFTC to establish a system of aggregate position limits. As the staff report demonstrated, CFTC knows how to calculate such limits.

I believe this legislation avoids the pitfalls of previous efforts in the 110th Congress to limit speculative positions in swaps.

It is simple, granting CFTC the broad mandate to impose aggregate position limits across positions held on registered entities, foreign boards of trade, and OTC markets that impact the price discovery function of a regulated market. It grants the regulator proper discretion to determine which contracts are functionally equivalent and what the limits should be.

It applies speculative position limits only to swaps that impact the price discovery function on regulated markets. By focusing CFTC efforts only on the major, standardized swaps contracts, the bill maintains legal certainty for unique financing agreements and other private bilateral transactions.

The bill also prevents speculators from migrating to less regulated contracts. CFTC will only be allowed to exempt contracts from position limits after it determines that the contract is not functioning as a haven from regulation. CFTC must impose speculative position limits on any contract that: is highly standardized; settles on the price of a contracted traded in a regulated marketplace; has its prices widely published and referenced; or traded in significant volumes.

Finally, the legislation addresses CFTC staff concerns that enforcing position limits on bilateral swaps contracts would be too cumbersome. In recent briefings, CFTC staff argued that the primary reason CFTC was not calling for speculative position limits on swaps is that position limits on swaps would force parties to void existing contracts, which harms the counterparty as much as the trader who is over their limit.

Regulators should not force a trader to break a contract if such action would punish the counterparties as well as the speculator. To address this, this legislation gives CFTC the power to enforce position limits with fines instead of forcing a trader to unwind a position.

Over the past 6 months, OTC swaps markets have been exposed, and it has become increasingly apparent that speculative position limits are both appropriate and feasible in order to protect regulated markets from manipulation and excessive speculation.

The regulated and unregulated energy markets are fully integrated. With traders moving back and forth freely, it is no longer reasonable to believe that bad behavior in swaps can be isolated.

A manipulated swaps market would likely impact the price discovery function of a futures market, and in turn affect consumer prices.

If we want fair play in the energy markets, we cannot continue to instruct the CFTC to swallow its whistle when it sees violations at the Swaps' end of the court.

We need to allow CFTC to call foul when it sees excessive speculation, whether on an exchange or in a voice brokered swaps market.

The Over-the-Counter Swaps Speculation Limit Act would give the CFTC back its whistle. It would allow the Commission to use the speculative position limit system in existence since the 1930s--to reel in excessive speculation in American energy markets.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act.

This is the House companion legislation to the Senate bill that I originally introduced, with Senator Sessions, to protect the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions for controlled substances over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies.

Today, Congress took the first important step in stemming the tide of online drug trafficking. Perhaps more importantly, Congress took the first steps toward ensuring that children and teens no longer overdose, or worse die, after purchasing controlled substances without a prescription from rogue Internet pharmacies.

This bill will do the following:

Bar the sale or distribution of all controlled substances over the Internet without a valid prescription;

Require online pharmacies to display on their Web site a statement of compliance with U.S. law and DEA regulations--allowing consumers to know which pharmacies are safe and which are not;

Clarify that rogue pharmacies that sell drugs over the Internet will face the same penalties as people who illegally sell the same drugs on the street;

Increase the Federal penalties for illegally distributing controlled substances;

And create a new Federal cause of action that would allow a State attorney general to shut down a rogue Web site selling controlled substances.

In addition, I would like to clarify that the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 regulates practices related to the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance by means of the Internet. The act does not address the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of any noncontrolled substance by the Internet or any other means.

This bill does not infringe upon the powers of the Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary with respect to noncontrolled substances. Nor does it infringe upon the traditional power of the States to regulate the practices of medicine and pharmacy with respect to the prescription of noncontrolled substances.

Delivery, distribution, or dispensing of noncontrolled substances, approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the regulatory bodies of the States, are not affected by the act. The Senate Committee report reflects Congress's intent related to this issue and is applicable to H.R. 6353.

In closing, I wish to share the story of this bill's namesake, Ryan T. Haight. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story is just one of many. Rogue Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens such as Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. This bill is the first step against that terrible tide. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy Web sites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

I thank my House and Senate colleagues for passing this important bill. I also specifically thank Representatives Bart Stupak, Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Mary Bono Mack, and John Dingell, and Senators Sessions and Leahy for their hard work and leadership in securing the passage of this bill.

I urge the President to sign this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week by voice vote. This legislation is necessary in order to make our rail lines safe. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

First, I thank Chairman Inouye, Chairman Lautenberg, and Senator Hutchison for their terrific leadership on this important bill. They worked in a bipartisan fashion to advance the first comprehensive rail safety bill since 1994. I appreciate their genuine efforts to make America's rail system as safe as possible.

The Rail Safety Improvement Act would prevent train accidents by deploying new safety technology.

It would also take steps to minimize train worker distraction and fatigue, and it would help those impacted by accidents.

Finally, it would invest in the future of rail, in which I firmly believe.

Let me explain what this bill does. After years of delay, this bill will mandate and authorize new funding for the installation of advanced train collision avoidance systems known as positive train control. It will also address grade crossings--establishing a grant program to fund improvements at crossings with a history of deadly collisions.

This bill will limit trainmen shifts to 12 hours, preventing tired engineers from falling asleep at the throttle; it will establish new hours of service rules tailored to ensure commuter rail line workers are rested; it will improve training for those who work the rails, and; it will permit the Federal Railroad Administration to ban cell phone use and other distractions.

The bill will create a program to assist victims and their families involved in passenger rail accidents.

The bill will also lay out a path that will guide the future of rail in America. It invests in Amtrak; it establishes competitive grants to expand the existing rail network into new areas; and it establishes significant Federal support for developing high speed rail in the United States.

This legislation is necessary and long overdue. Congress has not reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration--the FRA--since 1994, and without congressional guidance FRA has failed to respond to the National Transportation Safety Board's repeated calls for improvements. For example: NTSB has called for positive train control collision avoidance systems since the 1970s, and NTSB has called on FRA to ban the use of cell phones by engineers on duty since 2003. Without guidance from Congress, the FRA has done neither.

Beyond the calls made by NTSB, in California, three deadly crashes involving the Metrolink commuter rail system since 2002 demonstrate that the FRA needs a new mandate.

In 2002, a freight train in Orange County, CA, ran a signal and crashed into a stopped commuter train, killing three and injuring hundreds. NTSB found the collision would have been prevented by Positive Train Control, but nothing changed.

In 2005, a Metrolink train hit a vehicle left on the tracks at a highway rail intersection. This crash, which killed 11 southern Californians, was not unique. Such intersections lead to an average of 3,081 collisions and 368 deaths each year.

Seventeen days ago in Chatsworth, a Union Pacific freight train collided head-on with a Metrolink commuter train carrying 225 people headed home for the weekend. Twenty-five people died and 135 were injured.

In response to this terrible tragedy, I joined with Senator Boxer to introduce legislation requiring positive train control systems on America's trains--with priority given to high-risk routes where passenger and freight trains share the same tracks.

How can we have fully loaded freight and passenger trains traveling on the same track in opposite directions with nothing more to prevent a collision than signals and the attentiveness of a single engineer?

How can we apply 19th century safety systems to a very serious modern day problem?

This is a particularly acute issue in California, which has a great deal of single track, heavily traveled rail.

Mr. President, 41 percent--51 of the 125-mile--Los Angeles to San Diego Amtrak and commuter rail corridor is single track. This is the second most heavily traveled passenger rail line in the United States. On the Amtrak and commuter rail line from L.A. north to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, 80 percent the track is single-tracked--177 of 225 miles, with only limited passing sides. Also 88 percent--75 of 85 miles--of the Altamont Commuter Express commuter rail linking Stockton and San Jose is single track.

In California, we cannot afford to wait for crash avoidance systems to come down in cost. We need action now.

Let me point out for a minute how positive train control works.

Every train's position is tracked through global positioning, which is new technology that can monitor its location and speed. These systems constantly watch for excessive speed, improperly aligned switches, whether trains are on the wrong track, unauthorized train movements, and whether trains have missed signals to slow or stop.

Each train also has equipment on board that can take over from the engineer if the train doesn't comply with the safety signals. The system will override the engineer and automatically put on the brakes.

Versions of these systems exist and are in use today. They are in place in the Chicago-Detroit corridor and Amtrak has a system in the Northeast corridor. San Diego has a more simple system, known as Automatic Train Stop, which has been in existence since the 1940s and would have probably prevented the Metrolink's most recent deadly crash. But the railroad industry resists these collision prevention systems. They ask for more time. They say that the technology is still being developed.

By enacting the Rail Safety Improvement Act, Congress will demonstrate that it gets the message that positive train control will save lives. This legislation includes key parts of the Rail Collision Prevention Act that Senator Boxer and I introduced.

The positive train control systems mandated by this bill will prevent 40 to 60 train crashes a year and save lives.

And FRA will have the power to issue civil penalties if the systems are not in place.

While the bill that Senator Boxer and I introduced would have required collision avoidance systems on high risk track to be in place earlier than this legislation, the Rail Safety Improvement Act is nevertheless a major step in the right direction.

The FRA will have the power to move deadlines up on the highest risk rail routes, and I fully expect FRA to impose aggressive deadlines on single track, heavily traveled rail lines.

I believe we must do all we can to see that the Senate acts on it before the session comes to a close.

I believe rail has a bright future in America but only if the public's safety is assured.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of critical importance to the security of our borders and our Nation.

It is estimated that at least 15 million people enter the United States through the visa waiver program each year. Thousands of these people overstay their authorized visit, and many just simply disappear into the shadows.

This country cannot afford to continue this trend. The Department of Homeland Security and its partners must have the tools they need to protect Americans by tracking the millions who enter our country, including some who may wish on us grievous harm and injury.

A biometric system is one of the best tools we have to protect us from the use of fraudulent and stolen passports and other international documents. We need to make sure people are who they claim to be.

Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports and visas that were destined for overseas embassies.

Clearly, DHS cannot continue to add new countries into the visa waiver program without properly mitigating the security risks.

That is why Congress passed a provision in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act just last year requiring the Department of Homeland Security to implement a biometric air exit system. This biometric system is required to be in place by June 30, 2009.

The intent of Congress was and remains clear: There must be in place a fully operational biometric air exit system, or else the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot admit new countries into the visa waiver program.

Therefore, if such a biometric system is not implemented by June 30, 2009, the Secretary's authority to admit new countries with visa refusal rates above 3 percent shall be suspended until a biometric exit system is fully operational.

This is critical to ensuring the ability to track the arrivals and departures of foreign nationals--not just through a paper trail, but through fingerprints, photographs, and other fraud-proof biometric identifiers.

The bill that we are considering today cuts off funding for the biometric air exit system until reports are received by Congress on pilot tests of the air exit solution.

We simply cannot afford to delay the execution of the biometric exit system. Congress should not be restricting DHS's ability to protect our borders and our people.

However, if the biometric system is delayed and the Department of Homeland Security is unable to meet the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009, the visa waiver program should not be expanded.

That is the intent of the authorizing language and that is what's best to protect the security of our Nation.

The biometric air exit system was mandated as a result of the horrific events of 9/11. We are a different country today and we must learn the lessons of September 11 and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We cannot afford to go backwards as a country and Congress must do all that it can to protect our Nation and prevent another tragedy like 9/11.