Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished Senator from Florida. I have watched him over these months, and no one has tried harder than he to move toward a solution with respect to the Florida situation. He has told me on several occasions that never before have as many people voted in an election as did in Florida. I think the Senator mentioned some 2 million people voting in some primary election. It is inconceivable to you, and therefore to us, I believe, to have a convention where Florida is not represented. Of course, the same comments would go for the great State of Michigan.

I just want the Senator to know that I am very appreciative of the efforts he has made to try to settle the situation. I only wish they could have been successful. I do not believe the door is closed. I think the more the people of this country understand how important Florida and Michigan are to the democratic process, there will be strong support to reach some accommodation.

I thank the Senator for all he has done.

(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 504 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, at this time, I send a resolution to the desk. Perhaps, rather than do that, I should just speak about it and then introduce it separately.

This resolution is sent on behalf of Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and myself. It is also cosponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, as well as Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, and Byrd. It deals with Tibet.

It deals with what is happening in Tibet. This is a very difficult week because the day after tomorrow the Olympic torch is coming for the first time to my city, San Francisco, the only city in the United States that the torch will come to. It has created quite a stir.

This resolution condemns the violence in Tibet, and it calls for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. It does other things as well; that is, to urge the Government of China to sit down with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and try to work toward meaningful autonomy with respect to the culture and religion of the people of Tibet.

There is an area called the Tibetan Autonomous Region. It has 3 million Tibetans. There are also 3 million Tibetans in the three surrounding provinces of China.

Starting on March 10, Tibetan monks and others began protesting in the autonomous area of western China. The protests were begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes and were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without Government interference.

The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is punished in China, sometimes severely.

Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14, the protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long- suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot.

Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. They occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful. In some cases, they were met, though, with brute force by Chinese police. This resolution condemns force on both sides. The Chinese Government responded to these protests with force and secrecy. The crackdown included thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army, who were sent to Tibet.

International journalists and official representatives were kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain. But we know dozens of people or more have died. We know more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated.

Now, how did all this happen? Over the past decade, China has flooded the Tibetan Autonomous Region with Han Chinese. They have built a major railroad. Han Chinese have participated in a major building boom in the capital city of Lhasa. In fact, there are many more hotels and restaurants and businesses there today.

The majority of Tibetans who live in rural areas benefit very little from central government investment in this Tibetan economy. Instead, the money has flowed to government-run enterprises, in which Han control is dominant.

The Tibetans lack the skills to compete. According to the Chinese Government's 2000 census, the illiteracy rate of ethnic Tibetans in China is 48 percent; that is five times higher than the Chinese national illiteracy rate.

Instead of providing educational opportunity to Tibetans, China is currently advancing patriotic education in Tibet's monasteries. What this means is Chinese reeducation teams go into the monasteries and try to reeducate the Tibetan monks. If they do not agree to reeducation, they are often punished and often beaten. The bottom line is, few Tibetans are prepared to compete for employment and business opportunities in the Han-dominated economic environment.

I first went to China and was the first American mayor to do so in June of 1979. I went with a delegation of San Francisco businesspeople and civic activists to develop the first friendship city agreement between an American city and a Chinese city.

From that flowed an agreement which at one time was the most active sister city relationship in the world. That was between the great cities of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Chinese have always had a love of San Francisco; it goes back many decades into former centuries of Chinese coming to this country and landing in San Francisco first.

We developed that relationship and good things happened. The first Chinese Consulate came to San Francisco and an American Consulate was opened in Shanghai. The first COSCO ship came into San Francisco Bay. The first chartered air service landed at San Francisco International Airport. A special relationship was developed between Guangdong Province and San Francisco. The first Bank of China opened in this country and on and on and on with many interesting projects.

It turned out the mayor of Shanghai was, first, Wang Daohan and then Jiang Zemin. Jiang Zemin and I met over an ensuing 8-year period every year. He then went on to become Secretary General of the party and President of the country. In 1992, 1997, and 1998, I, personally, carried letters from the Dalai Lama to the President of China. In 1997 and 1998, I had long discussions with the President of China, President Jiang Zemin.

I would like, if I might, to read parts of these letters. The second letter is dated June 12, 1997. It is signed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Let me read this to you:

When I met Chairman Mao over forty years ago, I felt very

assured by him and the other leaders of the new China. The

promises made to me gave the people and government of Tibet

considerable optimism and confidence. In the mid-1950s, when

we were confronted with new crises, it was Premier Zhou En

Lai who was able to play a crucial role in restoring my

confidence; we met several times during my pilgrimage in

India. Unfortunately, the situation in Tibet did not improve

despite his best assurances and I ultimately had to go into

exile.

Despite lost time and opportunities and the turmoil of the

recent past, my hopes were renewed in 1979 when Mr. Deng

Xiaoping took the initiative to contact me through my brother

in Hong Kong, assuring me that short of our demand for

separation from the People's Republic of China, all

problems could be discussed and resolved. It was a long

overdue rapprochement, and within a few years were able to

make considerable progress on several fronts.

Unfortunately, this initiative, started by Mr. Deng and

vigorously carried out by Mr. Hu Yaobang, then Party General

Secretary, came to a stuttering halt owing to events in Tibet

and elsewhere in China that prevented its natural fruition.

Many of the issues are yet to be resolved, and Tibet now

draws the concern of more than just the Tibetan people. The

primary responsibility for resolving this matter lies with

us, and I believe that now is an opportune moment to tackle

these problems without prejudice. I have, for my part, openly

and in confidence conveyed to you that I am not demanding

independence for Tibet, which I believe is fundamental to the

Chinese government.

I think the issue of Tibet has remained unresolved for too

long and any further delay will only complicate the matter. I

am also deeply concerned by the growing restlessness among

the Tibetan people in recent times. I can fully understand

their frustrations. But if a mutually agreeable solution is

found, I am confident that I will be able to dispel the

Tibetan people's concerns and win their support for my

efforts.

It is signed, ``With my prayers, the Dalai Lama.''

I delivered this to Jiang Zemin, in China, on June 12, 1997. On May 16, 1998, the next year, I returned to China and I delivered another letter from His Holiness to Jiang Zemin. I would like to quote from that.

It is my fervent and sincere hope that you will provide

similar leadership in resolving the Tibetan problem. If we

look at the issue positively I really do not see major

contradictions between our respective positions. If I

understand correctly, the main concern of the Central

leadership in China is the unity and stability of the nation.

My middle-way approach for resolving the Tibetan issue will

in fact contribute towards achieving the same objectives.

I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking

independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six

million Tibetan people (or whatever the actual figure is of

people who consider themselves Tibetans) to be able to enjoy

the opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the

distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am

convinced that this could be achieved through genuine

autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's

Republic of China. Such a situation will also make it

possible for the Tibetan people to take full advantage of,

and be an integral part of, the socio-economic development,

which is taking place in China. It is needless to mention

that a solution to the Tibetan problem will gain tremendous

international respect for the People's Republic of China as

well as for your leadership.

Mr. President, it has been four decades since I have had

the opportunity to sit down personally with the leader of the

Chinese people to have a frank and direct dialogue. With your

leadership and initiative, I am confident that we can begin

the process of resolving the many issues concerning Tibet. I

believe that you are privileged to be leading the People's

Republic of China at a unique time in history when it's

economy is growing vigorously and when you are gaining a new

respectability in the world.

It goes on.

May I suggest that at our meeting, you and I discuss

relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese government. I

am also concerned about the maintenance and enhancement of

those cultural, civic, and religious institutions that are so

important to the Tibetan people and others throughout the

world. In addition, we should discuss the fact that economic

growth in Tibet has not matched that of the rest of China,

and we would be interested in talking about how we can work

together towards poverty alleviation and educational and

economic growth.

There are other parts to these letters. But I would ask that the full text be incorporated at this point in my remarks in the Record.

This was 1998. It is now 10 years later. And no discussion. I

have tried my level best but no discussion, no ability for the leader of 6 million people, part of China, to be able to sit down and discuss them.

So the events over the last month have been tragic. But if I think of the frustration that has built up over 40 years, of a leader who has renounced violence, who has proposed a middle way, it is shocking to me.

Since 2002, six sets of talks have occurred between the Dalai Lama's representative, namely his special envoy, Lodi Gyari, and the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China, but no progress has resulted.

Now, to bring this issue to a settlement, the leaders must be involved. I deeply believe it is in the interests of both the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people for the leaders to sit down and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and faith.

This is essentially what this resolution attempts to do in a constructive way. I know we called Senator Smith. I hoped he would be here. But the floor opened up and I decided to take the opportunity to speak briefly about our resolution. We have worked with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with other Senators as well. I believe this resolution sets forward in positive terms our concern about what is happening with Tibet and with China. I certainly remain open to trying to help in any way I possibly can to bring the two sides together. I know the frustration I feel, having tried 10 years ago, 11 years ago, 12 years ago, carrying letters from the Dalai Lama and then, in virtually every conversation I have had with Chinese leadership since; it has all come to naught.

What is happening is there is a newer, younger group of Tibetans who see the large Tibetan community in exile in Dharamsala who say the Dalai Lama, in pursuing this middle way, hasn't achieved anything, and therefore we have to take to the streets and we have to show that the Communists in China must sit down with us and must talk with us. I believe that is the scenario playing out in many provinces and all over the world today.

It can all be stopped by a different kind of scenario. That is one that recognizes that the Dalai Lama, a historic and well-respected religious leader, should be able to sit down with the leadership of China and discuss the problem and come up with a mechanism that can provide for the cultural and religious autonomy of the people both in the Tibetan autonomous area, as well as in the three surrounding provinces.

I hope this resolution will be heard, and I hope we will pass it shortly. If there is no objection, I send the resolution to the desk at this time.

Mr. President, I ask on behalf of Senator Casey of Pennsylvania unanimous consent that Mr. James Hedrick of his staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 3221.

Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the Durbin amendment and am very happy to support it. Later, Senator Martinez and I will be submitting an amendment. The Senator is in the Banking Committee now and will come to the floor shortly.

I wish to take this opportunity to speak about this amendment. It is also supported by Senators Boxer, Obama, Salazar, Dole, Durbin, and Clinton. Essentially, this amendment deals with the fact that today there is a very thin patchwork of State licensing for brokers. It is insufficient. There are no national standards for the licensing of a mortgage broker in this subprime marketplace. In many States, there are really no requirements. What that has done is enabled bad actors to flourish. I wish to give you two examples of what a bad actor as a subprime mortgage broker means.

I met this family in the picture in Los Angeles this past week. This is the Simmons family. Mr. Simmons worked for Northrop Grumman for 20 years, and Mrs. Simmons has been a checker at Alpha Beta for 26 years. They are retired. They have owned this home in Los Angeles for 39 years. Mr. Simmons had a stroke. When he had this stroke, they obviously had additional medical expenses. Last year, they were in the market for a better rate than the 8 percent they were paying on the loan on their house which remained and was $550,000. They got a cold- call from an unlicensed broker, who offered them a $629,000 loan with these terms: $25,000 cash back, a 4.5-percent interest rate, and monthly payments of $2,000 after four months at $5,300 to lower the interest rate. They studied it and said, ``We can afford this.'' And so they did it. Here is what really happened. The interest rate was 11.2 percent, not 4.5 percent. There was no cash back. The monthly payments were $5,300 every month. They called about it, and they were told it just wasn't true. The paper they signed was for $5,300 every month for the length of the mortgage. Then they learned that not only was there no cash back, but this broker walked off with $20,000 in his pocket. These are retired people. They were confronted with hundreds of pages of loan documents, filled with small print. They trusted their broker.

Not too long ago, my husband and I bought a home. We trusted our broker. He went through the papers with us. Candidly, I do not believe most people read every line of what amounts to a stack about 6 inches high of papers when you buy a home.

For the Simmons family, they dipped into their life savings. They are afraid they may lose their home. This is exactly the type of situation our bill would prevent.

Let me give you another story of Steve and Valvina McFatten. They live in Fresno, and they are in this photo with their children and dog in front of their house. They have two teenage daughters. Steve is an assembly-line worker. Valvina is an office assistant. They both work.

In 2005, a bank told them they could handle a mortgage of up to $135,000. When they saw their dream home the next year--listed at $250,000--they thought it was out of reach. But a broker steered them into two mortgages for $250,000 for only $1,000 down, with an adjustable interest rate. Their combined monthly payments were $1,600. Now, the McFattens have weak credit, modest income, and two children to raise. They told their broker they could not afford this loan. The broker told them not to worry, that their monthly payments included their property taxes, their mortgage insurance, and a warranty for home repairs. Well, did that turn out? No. Here is what the real deal was: no money toward property taxes, no money toward insurance, and no warranty. It was canceled without their knowledge.

These are two examples of what is happening in California. Many Americans trying to get a piece of the American dream have actually been sold a bill of goods by unscrupulous brokers and lenders. When I was in Los Angeles, the San Bernardino district attorney, the Los Angeles district attorney, and the State attorney general had just arrested nine bad actors in the mortgage broker business. So it is going on all of the time. People are told: Don't worry, you don't need a big downpayment. You can get into a zero-interest loan. Don't worry about what you are getting into. Home values always rise. Don't worry about the adjustable interest rate; you can always refinance. Don't worry, you cannot lose.

Well, the fact is that you can lose, and you can lose big. I can say that everybody should read the fine print and take the time to understand exactly

what their mortgage documents say. The fact is that people have difficulty understanding these very legal documents. They tend to depend on their mortgage broker. So the damage is staggering.

There were more than 2 million filings last year, and another 2 million are expected this year. Senator Boxer's and my State is ground zero, with 4 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rates in the Nation. No. 2 is Stockton. No. 4 is San Bernardino. No. 5 is Sacramento. No. 7 is Bakersfield. It just so happens that these are areas with a lot of middle-class, hard-working families who tend to trust their broker. Both people in the family work. They may not all be college graduates. They may have a tough time understanding the fine print, and they depend on the person who comes to them as a professional and makes personal representations to them.

My State accounts for more than 20 percent of the Nation's foreclosure filings. It is very serious. We have now learned how easy it is for anyone to get into the mortgage business in some States and, quite frankly, it is astonishing. A simple Internet search will show how easy it is.

These are statements taken right off the Internet for a broker. Here is the source: http://www.cflicense.com. We accessed this site on the 27th of February of this year. Here is what they advertised:

No experience, education or exam is necessary.

To sell subprime mortgages in the State of California.

And here is also what we learned:

You can hire unlicensed sales agents to originate loans

under your company license.

In fact, a lot of the real estate industry is opposed to mortgage licensing. They want to be able to do that. But our job is to decide, is this in the best interest of the consumer? I don't believe it is. As a matter of fact, I find it rather outrageous. I say to the real estate industry: This does you no good to have unlicensed subprime mortgage brokers who give bogus information to your clients.

So here is what this bipartisan amendment would do. First, it would establish some minimum, basic Federal license requirements. They would ensure mortgage brokers and lenders are trained in ethics, consumer protection, lending laws, and the subprime marketplace. To be licensed, you would have to have no felony convictions, have no similar license revoked, demonstrate a record of financial responsibility, successfully complete educational requirements, at least 20 hours of approved courses--it seems to me that is pretty basic--pass a comprehensive written exam, and meet an annual license review and renewal requirement. It would also require that all mortgage brokers and lenders provide fingerprints, a summary of work experience, and consent to a background check to authorities.

The bill would also establish a national database so individuals buying a home who wanted to use a subprime mortgage broker could go on the Internet and find out if that broker is, in fact, licensed.

The State would have the responsibility to carry out these minimum standards and could add any standards they wished. But State regulators would be required to develop a satisfactory licensing system within 1 year following the enactment of this legislation. If this does not occur, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary is empowered to quickly develop a national database and license-generating revenue for its implementation through fees to license applicants.

There is broad bipartisan support for this amendment. Our amendment is similar to a provision authored by Representative Spencer Bachus, a Republican from Alabama, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services.

The national licensing concept for mortgage lenders and brokers was included in the comprehensive mortgage reform bill which passed the House in November. And last month, the President's working group on financial markets recommended a similar proposal in their report on the housing crisis.

I will conclude. The emergence in recent years of subprime and other exotic mortgage products have put many American home buyers at great financial risk, and many of these products require little or no downpayment. They allow people with bad credit to get in over their head. They do not verify their wages. Many have exaggerated wages on the loan documents. And most lenders and brokers offered these mortgages, though, in a responsible fashion. But many others used predatory tactics, such as failing to disclose the full risk in order to place unsuspecting borrowers into mortgages they could not afford.

Madam President, my heart broke when I met the Simmons family. When I think of somebody working for 20 years for a defense firm in California, his wife working for 26 years as a checker in a supermarket so they could buy and sustain a home which, as we can see, they have kept in pristine condition, having a health problem--namely, a stroke by Mr. Simmons; it is difficult for him to get around, it is difficult for him to speak--costing them extra, using the home as a basis to try to refinance to take some money out of this house to pay for medical bills.

What is happening now? A bad actor got hold of them. They did not realize what they were getting into. He promised certain things which did not come through. And now this couple faces losing their home.

Fortunately, we were able to hook them up last week with a community pro bono law firm that will now represent them and deal with their mortgage company and try to see if they can recondition some of this loan back to what they were promised.

This is going on, and it is going on all over California. The areas I just pointed out, the 4 out of the 10 highest areas are not the most affluent places in my State. They are places where families just like the Simmons have heard the rhetoric: We can put you into the American dream; we can enable you to buy a home; and here, I, the mortgage broker am willing to sit down and make you all these commitments. Then they find out the commitments are ashes.

This has to stop. There is no place for the predator in this industry. I know Citibank told me they oppose the legislation. I say to Citibank: Are you proud of this? Is this the way you want to do business?

And I say to realtors who do not want these brokers to be licensed: Is that the way you want to do business? If it is, I am against what you want.

I hope this amendment is adopted. It has been talked about, it has been dealt with in general terms in a past bill that passed the House. The President's working group said we should consider it. We now have the chance to do it.

We face 2 million additional foreclosures, and we have to do something about predatory lenders and brokers, and this amendment is a beginning.

I certainly will.

Let me answer that. Not to the best of my knowledge. Let me also say--and perhaps I do, but I will find out--let me also say Citibank and even the California real

estate establishment want exemptions. Well, I am not willing to give exemptions. I say for shame if this is the way you want to practice your business. It is not acceptable.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I do not see anyone on the Republican side on the floor, although if they are coming, now would be a good time. I believe Senator Martinez and I are up, after a Republican, for an amendment. I am prepared to proceed.

Madam President, although I spoke about this amendment this morning, I wish to speak about it again. This amendment is called the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, ``licensing'' being the dispositive word. I am very proud to work with this with Senator Martinez of Florida. He is on his way and he will be making a statement following mine. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Obama, Dole, Durbin, Salazar, and Clinton.

One of the things I didn't realize is how big scams are a part of the subprime market. I remember picking up a USA Today newspaper in January and the headline reading, ``Housing Scams Rising, FBI Says. 2007 Convictions More Than Doubled.''

As we began to look at this, we found there was a very real problem. The problem is that there is but a thin patchwork of State regulations. They vary. Some do not have any. Some are pretty good; some are not so good. So we put together this bill, Senator Martinez and I, and I am very proud to say it is supported by the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, by the Conference of Bank Supervisors, by the mayor of Los Angeles, and by the National Association of Realtors. I wish to read, if I might, the realtors letter because I think it is important to the discussion.

On behalf of over 1.3 million members of the National

Association of REALTORS, I want to share our views on the

SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act offered by Senators Feinstein and

Martinez.

We believe this amendment will go far towards preventing

another subprime market failure that would further erode

confidence in the Nation's housing finance system. While

responsible subprime lenders have played an important role in

helping millions of consumers achieve homeownership, abusive

subprime lending has occurred much too often. As a result,

roughly 2.2 million American households have been projected

to lose their homes, and as much as $164 billion due to

subprime mortgage foreclosures.

Many of the provisions of the amendment are consistent with

NAR's ``Responsible Lending Principles.'' We believe our

principles provide an appropriate basis for legislation that

would help eliminate irresponsible practices such as making

loans without sufficient regard to the borrower's ability to

repay the loan and avoid foreclosure.

The National Association of REALTORS supports responsible

lending, mortgage servicing, and appraisal practices. We

support this amendment that will help close the door on

abusive lending practices.

I wish to say on behalf of the cosponsors of this amendment and myself, thank you to the National Association of Realtors.

We are very grateful for the support. The fact is, mortgage fraud complaints have jumped more than 700 percent over the last 5 years, from 5,623 in 2002 to 46,717 last year. Mortgage fraud complaints in my State, California--Senator Boxer's and my State--have increased 400 percent over the last 5 years, from 1,143 in 2002 to 4,060 last year.

All you have to do is take a look at the jump in these complaints and the jump in convictions to know there are scams going on and we need to stop them. The best way to stop them is to license these brokers and lenders so we prevent the 25-year-old scam artist--I do not pull this out of the air; this is a fact--who can come in, get on a telephone, and tell lenders or tell individuals what they can do to refinance their house and do it all in a bogus manner.

We have 10 States that are mortgage fraud hot spots in the United States. They are California, New York, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. These are mortgage fraud hot spots because of the number of complaints and convictions of mortgage fraud coming from these States. So the time has come to do something about it.

Now, there are some people in this body who say: Do not pass this bill today; put it in regular order. Let it go to the committee.

Let it go to the committee, and it will be another year before this bill is before us. And I will bet any amount of money the mortgage fraud will continue because all of the conditions are ripe for it.

The only way to handle it is to pass this bill so we set into motion some minimum national standard and allow the States to carry out this minimum standard and add to it anything the States might want.

As I say, the 1.3 million-member National Association of Realtors is in support of this amendment. And the group that regulates them is in support of the amendment as well. Today, subprime mortgages are 30 percent of all the mortgages in the largest State in the Union. Thirty percent of every mortgage is subprime in California. This is a community because they are mainly working class, not necessarily college graduates, who are eager pawns for bad actors in the mortgage and lending business.

Now, having said that, not all brokers are bad actors; many of them are honorable professionals. The fact is, this is a profession. This is what you do as a mortgage broker, as a lender.

You should have standards. You should have to pass a test. You should have to get a license, and you should have to renew that license periodically. How else can you be able to go out, get on a phone, call people and say: Look, I can refinance your house at 4 percent. You bring in the eager homeowner, and then the reality is something very different.

These bad actors must be stopped. There is only one way to stop them; that is, have minimum Federal standards, allow the States--and in my State it would be the Corporation Department that would do this, that sets up the licenses, that sets up the training. And individuals would go through the training, they would have their background checked, they would get a license, and the license would go up for renewal annually.

Some object to it. My goodness, attorneys have to renew their licenses. Why not someone who puts out mortgages which is very often everything an individual owns? Why is it not important for them to have a license and have that license renewed?

Once again, I would like to tell you about this family. I do so because I met them in Los Angeles last week. This is the Simmons family. Look at their house. It is not a mansion. It is a one-story, well-kept stucco home with flowers planted, bushes trimmed.

The gentleman, Mr. Simmons, was an employee of Northrop Grumman for 20 years; his wife employed as a food checker at Alpha Beta for 26 years. They have owned this home for 39 years. Mr. Simmons had a stroke. They found they needed cash. They received a cold call, a phone call from somebody. They wanted $500,000, to be able to get a loan, take this out, use it for medical expenses.

They offered them a $629,000 loan with $25,000 cash back, 4.5 percent interest rate, and monthly payments of $2,000. Now, they are not college graduates. These are working people who did everything they could to buy a home, who have kept that home up for 39 years in good condition, and who today are going to lose that home.

And here is why: There was no cash back, different from what they were promised. The interest was 11.2 percent on this loan. The monthly payments were not $2,000 as they were told; it was $5,300. When they had to make the first payment, they called the broker and said: You told us $2,000. Why is it $5,300?

The broker said: It is only that for 4 months, to draw down the interest rate.

They said: Ok, I guess we can do it for 4 months. It was not only for 4 months, it was for the length of the mortgage. And the broker walks off with a $20,000 fee.

Now, in my book this is fraud. There are some who say: Oh, people get the papers. Let them read through them.

You have bought a home, Mr. President. I have bought a home. I did not read all of the fine print on all of the documents. I depend on the word of the broker. And I believe most people do that.

Now, I am not a lawyer. I do have a college degree. What if I only had a high school degree or not even that? I worked all my life. I do not understand the fine print. This is why you have professionals representing you to tell you the truth.

There is a penalty--should be--if they do not tell you the truth. Buying a home should not be a scam. Refinancing a home should not be a scam. So we then went on the Internet. Let's see what companies advertising to employ brokers say. And here is one of them. Here is the source. We accessed it on February 27 for brokers: No experience, education, or exam is necessary. No experience, education, or exam is necessary.

They go on to say to the company: You can hire unlicensed sales agents to originate loans under your company license.

I do not think they should be able to do that because it is these people who pick up the phone and call the homeowners and offer that second mortgage. Particularly in the subprime market, where many people have very little, if any, downpayment, this presents enormous difficulty.

Consequently, we have a real problem. I hope this amendment passes today. Perhaps some people do not like this or that. It can be worked out in conference. But when we are passing this bill, we ought to pass something that says once and for all the Federal Government is willing to step in, set minimum standards; you, the State, set up your laws, set up your licensing requirements. These are the minimum standards, and you can add to them and see that those people, mortgage brokers and lenders, are licensed.

The legislation also creates a database so that I, Joe Doe, about to buy a house, can go into my computer, if I have one, and see that my mortgage broker is licensed, know that he has been to school, know that he has been informed of ethics, know that he does not have a felony background right now, you can have a felony background--and know that his license is renewed annually so he is kept up to date on ethics and best practices.

This industry, real estate, because it controls such a large proportion of most people's wealth, their homes--their home is their rock. Everything flows from that home ownership. And for most people buying a home is truly the American dream. Owning, having that equity, building that equity over the years, being able to finance retirement from the equity in a home when they choose to sell it is such a big deal. And to have bad actors, flim-flam artists going around suckering in people makes me angry. So I would hope this body, on behalf of Senator Martinez and me, will be willing to pass this legislation today.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar as a cosponsor.

I ask unanimous consent to add to the Record letters from the State Bank Supervisors and the National Association of Mortgage Brokers in support of this amendment.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez.

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 1-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision on global warming pollution, to introduce the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding Deadline and California Waiver Reconsideration Act. The bill would force the EPA and this administration to act--at long last--against global warming.

This legislation will impose two significant deadlines on the Environmental Protection Agency.

First, the legislation gives EPA 60 days to respond to the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling.

Second, this bill requires EPA to reconsider its unprecedented decision to deny the State of California a Federal waiver that would have allowed the State to limit tailpipe greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks.

Unfortunately, deadlines for EPA action are necessary in both cases.

In its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, issued 1 year ago today, the Supreme Court gave EPA a specific task: Determine whether the emissions of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and then comply with the Clean Air Act requirements that result from this determination.

Yet 1 year later, EPA has done nothing. EPA Administrator Johnson pledged to act by December, but that day came and went.

I wrote to Administrator Johnson in January asking for a timeline for action.

He wrote back to tell me he could not give me one.

Last month, when I asked Mr. Johnson how many people were working on this endangerment finding, he could not tell me if anyone was working on it.

In a March 27, 2008, letter to me and many of my colleagues, EPA indicated that it intends to begin soliciting comments from the public as the Agency ``considers'' regulations of greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA's letter indicates that it does not intend to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, as the court instructed it to do, anytime in the near future.

Instead EPA's Administrator stated that ``implementing the Supreme Court's decision could affect many sources beyond just the cars and trucks considered by the Court,'' suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court would have come to a different conclusion had it better understood the Clean Air Act.

The process will not begin until ``later this spring.''

EPA has no further timeline for action, nor has it set a deadline for completion.

The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts v. EPA case today returned to court to compel the EPA to act. This bill is intended to work in tandem with their suit, compelling EPA to take an action, which both the courts and the law indicate should not be unreasonably delayed. No one should interpret this bill as a substitute for the courts taking action to compel EPA to act without delay under existing law. Both the new lawsuit and this bill are prompted by the clear failure of EPA to act on a reasonable timeline.

Bottom Line: Responding to the Supreme Court's remand cannot and should not be delayed for an undefined period of time.

EPA has had a full year to collect public comment and consider the implications of its response, and it has done so. EPA staff told Congress that they spent thousands of hours writing an endangerment finding and proposed regulations this past autumn. A draft has already been submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

This legislation puts EPA on the clock to finish the job it was assigned by the highest court in the land.

The second deadline in this legislation requires the EPA Administrator to reconsider, and either confirm or reject, EPA Administrator Johnson's December decision to deny California a Clean Air Act waiver.

Without the waiver, California and 15 other States are unable to control greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

EPA Administrator Johnson denied this waiver even though EPA's legal and technical staff unanimously recommended that the waiver be issued.

EPA's attorneys had told Mr. Johnson that a waiver denial in this case would ``in effect, amend the Clean Air Act by Administrative Action.''

They told him that EPA would be sued and ``was likely to lose suit.''

The decision was made before the legal justification had been written. EPA staff had been cut out of the process entirely.

His official legal document, issued more than 2 months after Mr. Johnson issued the decision, asserts that the waiver was denied based almost entirely on the legislative history of the 1967 Clean Air Act. His legal document made no mention of the fact that Congress rewrote the operative section in 1977.

In hearing after hearing, Mr. Johnson has asserted that he made this decision himself. Apparently he read the law differently than every one of his agency's experts and attorneys--a different reading he has never explained. But even he has acknowledged that the process under which this decision was made was unusual.

I believe that an unusual process led to an unusual result.

This bill would give EPA the opportunity to reconsider this decision. And with this reconsideration we will see whether a normal process will produce a different result.

This legislation sets firm deadlines by which EPA must complete its work. It instructs the administration to act in the face of climate change. It brings an end to the delay and obfuscation that impede progress.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 1-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision on global warming pollution, to introduce the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding Deadline and California Waiver Reconsideration Act. The bill would force the EPA and this administration to act--at long last--against global warming.

This legislation will impose two significant deadlines on the Environmental Protection Agency.

First, the legislation gives EPA 60 days to respond to the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling.

Second, this bill requires EPA to reconsider its unprecedented decision to deny the State of California a Federal waiver that would have allowed the State to limit tailpipe greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks.

Unfortunately, deadlines for EPA action are necessary in both cases.

In its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, issued 1 year ago today, the Supreme Court gave EPA a specific task: Determine whether the emissions of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and then comply with the Clean Air Act requirements that result from this determination.

Yet 1 year later, EPA has done nothing. EPA Administrator Johnson pledged to act by December, but that day came and went.

I wrote to Administrator Johnson in January asking for a timeline for action.

He wrote back to tell me he could not give me one.

Last month, when I asked Mr. Johnson how many people were working on this endangerment finding, he could not tell me if anyone was working on it.

In a March 27, 2008, letter to me and many of my colleagues, EPA indicated that it intends to begin soliciting comments from the public as the Agency ``considers'' regulations of greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA's letter indicates that it does not intend to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, as the court instructed it to do, anytime in the near future.

Instead EPA's Administrator stated that ``implementing the Supreme Court's decision could affect many sources beyond just the cars and trucks considered by the Court,'' suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court would have come to a different conclusion had it better understood the Clean Air Act.

The process will not begin until ``later this spring.''

EPA has no further timeline for action, nor has it set a deadline for completion.

The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts v. EPA case today returned to court to compel the EPA to act. This bill is intended to work in tandem with their suit, compelling EPA to take an action, which both the courts and the law indicate should not be unreasonably delayed. No one should interpret this bill as a substitute for the courts taking action to compel EPA to act without delay under existing law. Both the new lawsuit and this bill are prompted by the clear failure of EPA to act on a reasonable timeline.

Bottom Line: Responding to the Supreme Court's remand cannot and should not be delayed for an undefined period of time.

EPA has had a full year to collect public comment and consider the implications of its response, and it has done so. EPA staff told Congress that they spent thousands of hours writing an endangerment finding and proposed regulations this past autumn. A draft has already been submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

This legislation puts EPA on the clock to finish the job it was assigned by the highest court in the land.

The second deadline in this legislation requires the EPA Administrator to reconsider, and either confirm or reject, EPA Administrator Johnson's December decision to deny California a Clean Air Act waiver.

Without the waiver, California and 15 other States are unable to control greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

EPA Administrator Johnson denied this waiver even though EPA's legal and technical staff unanimously recommended that the waiver be issued.

EPA's attorneys had told Mr. Johnson that a waiver denial in this case would ``in effect, amend the Clean Air Act by Administrative Action.''

They told him that EPA would be sued and ``was likely to lose suit.''

The decision was made before the legal justification had been written. EPA staff had been cut out of the process entirely.

His official legal document, issued more than 2 months after Mr. Johnson issued the decision, asserts that the waiver was denied based almost entirely on the legislative history of the 1967 Clean Air Act. His legal document made no mention of the fact that Congress rewrote the operative section in 1977.

In hearing after hearing, Mr. Johnson has asserted that he made this decision himself. Apparently he read the law differently than every one of his agency's experts and attorneys--a different reading he has never explained. But even he has acknowledged that the process under which this decision was made was unusual.

I believe that an unusual process led to an unusual result.

This bill would give EPA the opportunity to reconsider this decision. And with this reconsideration we will see whether a normal process will produce a different result.

This legislation sets firm deadlines by which EPA must complete its work. It instructs the administration to act in the face of climate change. It brings an end to the delay and obfuscation that impede progress.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the organizational meeting for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, at 5:15 p.m., in room S-219 of the Capitol.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Howard Gantman at the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 224-6352.

I thank my colleagues for passing S. 980, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act.

With Senator Sessions, I introduced this bill 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.

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

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 non controlled 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.

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

This legislation is a critical first step in stemming the tide of online drug trafficking and prescription drug abuse.

In closing, I want to share the story of this bill's namesake, Ryan T. Haight. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, California, 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 like Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. This bill is the first step to stem 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 colleagues for rising up and passing this important bill.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if it is what I think it is, we will object. It will take all grants away from the University of California, if I understand the amendment correctly.

I object.

Mr. President, this amendment is an overkill. My colleague and I are the first ones to say Berkeley made a huge mistake. Berkeley apologized for that mistake. Following all of this, the recruiting station wrote a letter to the University of California and thanked them for their steadfast service and accommodation of the recruiting center.

Essentially, what the Senator is trying to do is punish by rescinding any congressionally directed spending item for Berkeley, any entities located in such city, such as the Roberts Center which treats paralyzed veterans, and to transfer such funds to the Marine Corps. They would remove transportation funds, police and fire funds, and nutrition funds for children.

I mean, the point has been made. The situation is solved, but it isn't enough for the Senator. He has to come back and hit hard, and I disagree.

Mr. President, is all time used?

Mr. President, in the Boxer amendment, we clarified SCHIP law. A pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if the woman is pregnant in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage.

We solved the problem in the Boxer amendment. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Stevens and Senator Akaka to offer a bill that takes a major step forward in protecting our Nation's food supply. This bill will provide penalties for those who are caught trying to slaughter ``nonambulatory'' or downed animals for food, and will improve public notification procedures for voluntary food recalls.

First, this bill would ban the slaughter of ``nonambulatory'' animals for use in food.

Second, it would establish a graduated penalty system providing incentives for slaughter facilities to follow the law regarding nonambulatory animals; and; third, in the event of a meat or poultry recall, it would direct the USDA to release the names of establishments that have received the recalled products so consumers can more easily identify products that could be harmful.

Animals that are sick and too weak to stand or walk on their own should not be slaughtered and used for food.

The safety of our food supply is too important to take any chances.

Processing downed animals poses a health risk especially to vulnerable populations, those who have compromised immune systems, and the very young and elderly who rely on our Government food inspection system to protect them against foodborne illness.

On February 17, 2008, the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, CA, issued a recall of over 143 million pounds of beef products that were processed at their plant.

This came after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video showing workers abusing nonambulatory cows to get them on their feet for slaughter.

The recall brought to the forefront the risk associated with processing sick or injured animals for human consumption.

The potential health risk of slaughtering downed animals became a public concern in late 2003 when a cow imported from Canada was found to have BSE, mad cow disease.

In an effort to keep BSE infected beef out of the food supply, USDA banned all nonambulatory cattle from being slaughtered regardless of the reason.

Since then, the regulation banning nonambulatory cattle from slaughter has been revised to allow USDA veterinarians discretion on a case-by-case basis to allow downed cattle into the food supply.

Clearly, establishments have an incentive to keep all the animals delivered to their facility ambulatory for slaughter.

This legislation provides the incentive for an establishment to follow the laws and regulations governing the humane handling of nonambulatory animals by offering a graduated penalty system for noncompliance.

For a first violation, in addition to temporarily suspending USDA inspection, a fine will be assessed and will be based on a percentage of the establishment's gross income.

A second violation will suspend USDA inspection services for 1 year.

A third violation will withdraw the establishment's Grant of Inspection permanently, effectively closing the operation.

Additionally, to aid in recovering all of the meat products that are recalled, the USDA will be required to promulgate regulation to release the names of establishments that have received recalled products.

This will help distributors, retailers and consumers better identify products that have been recalled to aid them in getting those products off their shelves and out of their homes.

We must ensure that those who process our food provide the safest, most wholesome products possible to consumers, and when a recall is necessary, we must provide the best notification systems for consumers to take action.

This bill will take us one step closer to a safer more wholesome food supply system.

I hope that my colleagues will join us in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Stevens and Senator Akaka to offer a bill that takes a major step forward in protecting our Nation's food supply. This bill will provide penalties for those who are caught trying to slaughter ``nonambulatory'' or downed animals for food, and will improve public notification procedures for voluntary food recalls.

First, this bill would ban the slaughter of ``nonambulatory'' animals for use in food.

Second, it would establish a graduated penalty system providing incentives for slaughter facilities to follow the law regarding nonambulatory animals; and; third, in the event of a meat or poultry recall, it would direct the USDA to release the names of establishments that have received the recalled products so consumers can more easily identify products that could be harmful.

Animals that are sick and too weak to stand or walk on their own should not be slaughtered and used for food.

The safety of our food supply is too important to take any chances.

Processing downed animals poses a health risk especially to vulnerable populations, those who have compromised immune systems, and the very young and elderly who rely on our Government food inspection system to protect them against foodborne illness.

On February 17, 2008, the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, CA, issued a recall of over 143 million pounds of beef products that were processed at their plant.

This came after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video showing workers abusing nonambulatory cows to get them on their feet for slaughter.

The recall brought to the forefront the risk associated with processing sick or injured animals for human consumption.

The potential health risk of slaughtering downed animals became a public concern in late 2003 when a cow imported from Canada was found to have BSE, mad cow disease.

In an effort to keep BSE infected beef out of the food supply, USDA banned all nonambulatory cattle from being slaughtered regardless of the reason.

Since then, the regulation banning nonambulatory cattle from slaughter has been revised to allow USDA veterinarians discretion on a case-by-case basis to allow downed cattle into the food supply.

Clearly, establishments have an incentive to keep all the animals delivered to their facility ambulatory for slaughter.

This legislation provides the incentive for an establishment to follow the laws and regulations governing the humane handling of nonambulatory animals by offering a graduated penalty system for noncompliance.

For a first violation, in addition to temporarily suspending USDA inspection, a fine will be assessed and will be based on a percentage of the establishment's gross income.

A second violation will suspend USDA inspection services for 1 year.

A third violation will withdraw the establishment's Grant of Inspection permanently, effectively closing the operation.

Additionally, to aid in recovering all of the meat products that are recalled, the USDA will be required to promulgate regulation to release the names of establishments that have received recalled products.

This will help distributors, retailers and consumers better identify products that have been recalled to aid them in getting those products off their shelves and out of their homes.

We must ensure that those who process our food provide the safest, most wholesome products possible to consumers, and when a recall is necessary, we must provide the best notification systems for consumers to take action.

This bill will take us one step closer to a safer more wholesome food supply system.

I hope that my colleagues will join us in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address a troublesome byproduct of our Nation's mining history: abandoned mines.

The 1872 Mining Law created national standards to regulate gold and silver mining operations on Federal lands. Since then, hundreds of thousands of gold and silver mines have been abandoned.

There are roughly 500,000 abandoned mines across the U.S., and nearly 47,000 abandoned mines in my home State of California.

According to the California Department of Conservation, all but two of California's 58 counties have abandoned mines; and close to 70 percent of California's abandoned mines are located in the ``Mother Lode'' area in the Northern Sierra or San Bernardino, Inyo and Kern Counties in the southeastern part of the State.

Because the 1872 Mining Law is so outdated, we have been unable to adequately clean up and remediate these abandoned mines.

The need for action is great.

The bill that I am introducing today, is not intended to be a comprehensive hardrock mining reform bill, but it is an important piece of the reform that is needed in hardrock mining.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2008, will reform the 1872 Mining Law by: establishing fees to support abandoned mine cleanup; establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund.

Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine cleanup.

This legislation would help fund the cleanup of abandoned mines by placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals, using the underground coal industry fee program as a model.

Here is why--the condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal mining companies.

This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the solution to the hardrock abandoned mine cleanup.

This legislation also establishes a royalty on Hardrock Mining Claims.

Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even though we are experiencing near record high gold prices, around $900 an ounce.

These companies should be required to pay their fair share.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent royalty for existing operations.

These royalties are at the same level as the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, H.R. 2262, which was passed by the House late last year.

The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine Fund.

In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines.

So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine cleanup fund to ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical cleanup effort.

Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.

Now I would like to take a moment to talk more about why abandoned mines are so problematic.

First, members of the public are in danger of getting seriously hurt or killed by falling down old mine shafts.

In the past 2 years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were reported in California. These accidents resulted in four fatalities and seven others were injured and/or required rescuing.

But the even greater threat from abandoned mines comes from the danger of groundwater pollution.

Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are being polluted by high levels of mercury or increased sedimentation.

This in turn exposes people who drink this water to harmful minerals like mercury, chromium and asbestos and the fish who swim in streams fed by these waters are likewise contaminated.

The Bureau of Land Management reports that abandoned mines have contaminated 17 major watersheds in California, which supply water for millions of people and provide habitat for important species like salmon and other fish that are caught and consumed by the public.

So, the threat to public health is critical.

Mining has played in California's history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville, California in 1848 was a defining moment for California and the U.S.

It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today.

The great history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular, abandoned mine sites on Federal lands.

Let me illustrate a few examples of abandoned mine sites located on Federal land in California.

These sites are causing serious public safety and environmental problems: Rand Historic Mining Complex located on BLM land in eastern Kern County and northwestern San Bernardino County.

This area includes the Kelly Silver Mine and the Yellow Aster Gold Mine near the communities of Johannesburg, Randsburg, and Red Mountain.

The problem is this: The sites contain extensive arsenic-bearing mine waste and numerous open mine shafts that could cause safety hazards.

The Pond Gold Mine Site located in Placer County on BLM land.

This mine site consists of an extensive network of sluice tunnels and a large waste rock pile.

Here's the problem: The Pond Mine has been determined to be a source of mercury to Pond Creek and the Middle Fork of the American River.

The Golinsky Mine located on Forest Service land located in Shasta County.

The Golinsky mine is an abandoned copper mine that is releasing acid mine drainage into Shasta Lake.

The responsible party has been identified, but has declared bankruptcy. This has forced the Forest Service to spend more than $2.2 million dollars investigating and mitigating the environmental problems while they try to recoup the costs.

There are numerous abandoned mine sites that may not yet have been discovered all across California.

One place where we expect the problem to grow is in Joshua Tree National Park.

Joshua Tree has numerous former mine sites that contain a series of shafts near trails and roads. These mine shafts vary in size and the depth ranges from 20 to 200 feet deep--and are extremely dangerous, potentially causing people to fall into them.

So, these abandoned mines are a serious problem throughout the State. We need to take action soon to clean them up.

The problems caused by abandoned mines are not going away--and with each passing day, the health danger will continue to rise.

It is important to our children and grandchildren that we start the process of cleaning up the abandoned mines that were left to us. But we cannot do it without a substantial and reliable source of funding.

Here is the key: this legislation doesn't reinvent the wheel. It implements solutions that have been working for a similar problem. It uses many of the ideas that have helped the coal industry to raise over seven billion dollars for abandoned mines.

It is time to expect the same from the hardrock mining industry.

Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be done.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the 1872 Mining Law is reformed--so that 21st Century mining regulations will be applied to 21st Century mining operations.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address a troublesome byproduct of our Nation's mining history: abandoned mines.

The 1872 Mining Law created national standards to regulate gold and silver mining operations on Federal lands. Since then, hundreds of thousands of gold and silver mines have been abandoned.

There are roughly 500,000 abandoned mines across the U.S., and nearly 47,000 abandoned mines in my home State of California.

According to the California Department of Conservation, all but two of California's 58 counties have abandoned mines; and close to 70 percent of California's abandoned mines are located in the ``Mother Lode'' area in the Northern Sierra or San Bernardino, Inyo and Kern Counties in the southeastern part of the State.

Because the 1872 Mining Law is so outdated, we have been unable to adequately clean up and remediate these abandoned mines.

The need for action is great.

The bill that I am introducing today, is not intended to be a comprehensive hardrock mining reform bill, but it is an important piece of the reform that is needed in hardrock mining.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2008, will reform the 1872 Mining Law by: establishing fees to support abandoned mine cleanup; establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund.

Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine cleanup.

This legislation would help fund the cleanup of abandoned mines by placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals, using the underground coal industry fee program as a model.

Here is why--the condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal mining companies.

This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the solution to the hardrock abandoned mine cleanup.

This legislation also establishes a royalty on Hardrock Mining Claims.

Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even though we are experiencing near record high gold prices, around $900 an ounce.

These companies should be required to pay their fair share.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent royalty for existing operations.

These royalties are at the same level as the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, H.R. 2262, which was passed by the House late last year.

The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine Fund.

In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines.

So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine cleanup fund to ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical cleanup effort.

Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.

Now I would like to take a moment to talk more about why abandoned mines are so problematic.

First, members of the public are in danger of getting seriously hurt or killed by falling down old mine shafts.

In the past 2 years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were reported in California. These accidents resulted in four fatalities and seven others were injured and/or required rescuing.

But the even greater threat from abandoned mines comes from the danger of groundwater pollution.

Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are being polluted by high levels of mercury or increased sedimentation.

This in turn exposes people who drink this water to harmful minerals like mercury, chromium and asbestos and the fish who swim in streams fed by these waters are likewise contaminated.

The Bureau of Land Management reports that abandoned mines have contaminated 17 major watersheds in California, which supply water for millions of people and provide habitat for important species like salmon and other fish that are caught and consumed by the public.

So, the threat to public health is critical.

Mining has played in California's history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville, California in 1848 was a defining moment for California and the U.S.

It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today.

The great history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular, abandoned mine sites on Federal lands.

Let me illustrate a few examples of abandoned mine sites located on Federal land in California.

These sites are causing serious public safety and environmental problems: Rand Historic Mining Complex located on BLM land in eastern Kern County and northwestern San Bernardino County.

This area includes the Kelly Silver Mine and the Yellow Aster Gold Mine near the communities of Johannesburg, Randsburg, and Red Mountain.

The problem is this: The sites contain extensive arsenic-bearing mine waste and numerous open mine shafts that could cause safety hazards.

The Pond Gold Mine Site located in Placer County on BLM land.

This mine site consists of an extensive network of sluice tunnels and a large waste rock pile.

Here's the problem: The Pond Mine has been determined to be a source of mercury to Pond Creek and the Middle Fork of the American River.

The Golinsky Mine located on Forest Service land located in Shasta County.

The Golinsky mine is an abandoned copper mine that is releasing acid mine drainage into Shasta Lake.

The responsible party has been identified, but has declared bankruptcy. This has forced the Forest Service to spend more than $2.2 million dollars investigating and mitigating the environmental problems while they try to recoup the costs.

There are numerous abandoned mine sites that may not yet have been discovered all across California.

One place where we expect the problem to grow is in Joshua Tree National Park.

Joshua Tree has numerous former mine sites that contain a series of shafts near trails and roads. These mine shafts vary in size and the depth ranges from 20 to 200 feet deep--and are extremely dangerous, potentially causing people to fall into them.

So, these abandoned mines are a serious problem throughout the State. We need to take action soon to clean them up.

The problems caused by abandoned mines are not going away--and with each passing day, the health danger will continue to rise.

It is important to our children and grandchildren that we start the process of cleaning up the abandoned mines that were left to us. But we cannot do it without a substantial and reliable source of funding.

Here is the key: this legislation doesn't reinvent the wheel. It implements solutions that have been working for a similar problem. It uses many of the ideas that have helped the coal industry to raise over seven billion dollars for abandoned mines.

It is time to expect the same from the hardrock mining industry.

Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be done.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the 1872 Mining Law is reformed--so that 21st Century mining regulations will be applied to 21st Century mining operations.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I will retract that and not set aside the pending amendment.

Amendment No. 4104

I would like to speak on an amendment I intend to submit at the appropriate time.

There are six chemicals that are often included in plastic toys. What those chemicals do is essentially make the toy softer, more pliable-- ergo, more attractive to children.

This is my communications director's young son. His name is Max Gerber. He is 8 months old in this picture.

He is sucking on his favorite book. I ask unanimous consent that I might show you what that book looks like.

This is that book. The book is called ``Hello Bee, Hello Me.'' As you can see, it is an attractive book. It was studied in 2006, and it was found to be loaded with phthalates. But this is what babies do; they put everything in their mouths.

Phthalates all too often are found in high quantities in children's toys and other products. Studies have found that they are linked to both birth and other serious rare reproductive defects. When these young children chew or suck on a toy with phthalates, these chemicals can leech from the toy into the child and enter the child's bloodstream.

They interfere with the national functioning of the hormone system, and they can cause reproductive abnormalities and result in an early onset of puberty. Parents across the country actually have no idea of these risks.

These chemicals have been banned in the European Union, five other countries, and my home State of California, and eight other States are now proposing similar bans. I believe this is the appropriate time for the Federal Government to shield children from these chemicals.

Now, of course, my communications director, like many parents, had no idea that this book contained high levels of phthalates. But it is not just books; phthalates can be found in a variety of soft children's toys such as rubber ducks and teethers like this one.

I ask unanimous consent that I may show you that teether.

It is this. It is very flexible. It is loaded with these chemicals.

So you can see Max is a little bit older, chewing on a teether. Tests found that teether contained a high level of phthalates.

In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys like this teether to a Chicago lab to test whether they contained phthalates. They did, in fact.

The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate level of five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the amount of phthalates now permissible under California law. The face of a popular doll contained double California's new phthalates limits.

Another study tested 20 popular plastic toys. The results were equally troubling. A Baby I'm Yours doll sold at Target contained nearly 32 percent of phthalates. A toy ball sold at Toys R Us was found to contain 47\1/2\ percent phthalates. Three types of squeeze toys--a penguin and two ducks--contained high levels of phthalates. They were also bought at Wal-Mart and Target.

So I would like to, if I can, if I will be cleared to do it, send an amendment to the desk. The amendment would replicate what will be California law in 2008 and ban the use of the chemical phthalates in toys as California has done and eight States are continuing to do.

The European Union banned phthalates in 2006. That is all these countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. They have all banned the use of these chemicals in children's toys. Fiji, Korea, and Mexico have also banned or restricted phthalates in children's products.

Beginning next year, toys containing more than trace amounts of phthalates cannot be sold in California stores. My home State was the first State to ban phthalates in toys and other children's products. Governor Schwarzenegger signed the legislation, which, as I say, will become effective in January of 2009. Eight States are following California's lead. Legislation has been offered in Washington State, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York.

Unfortunately, toys containing phthalates are still available to children across this country. I think it is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations because without action the United States risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate-laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. I think American children deserve better. Parents in every State should be able to enter any toy store, buy a present for their child, and know they are not placing their son's or daughter's health at risk.

This amendment follows the same standards already set by the European Union and California. It bans the use of six types of phthalates in toys. Three of the phthalates are banned from all children's toys; three others are banned from toys children place in their mouths. The amendment clearly states these chemicals cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause reproductive or developmental harm.

Now the science. The science involving phthalates is still evolving; however, we know exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term effects. Some of the potential health effects and defects are highly personal and difficult to discuss. They are problems no parent would ever want a child to experience.

I have two anthologies here which I will make available, a phthalates research summary and a paper which summarizes several of the works of science.

Here are some of the effects: Pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with reproductive birth defects. That is a University of Rochester 2005 study. Phthalate exposure has also been linked to the premature onset of puberty in young girls as young as 8 years old. That is a 2000 study published in Environmental Health Perspective. A 2002 study linked phthalate exposure levels to decreased fertility capacity in men. And phthalates found in household dust have been linked to asthma symptoms in children. That is a Swedish study. The evidence that phthalates cause health problems continues to mount. Young children whose bodies are growing and developing and extraordinarily sensitive are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them.

Now, many American toy retailers have already stepped up when it comes to phthalates. I am very grateful for this. Target has already eliminated phthalates from baby changing tables. Late last year, they announced that most toys they sell will be phthalate-free by fall of 2008.

Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announced they will voluntarily comply with California's standard nationwide. These are two huge retailers that will voluntarily comply with the California standard. They informed toy producers that beginning in 2009, they will no longer sell toys that contain phthalates.

These retailers should really be commended. I would like to do so. Thank you, Wal-Mart, thank you Toys R Us and thank you, Target.

This action also underscores the emerging uneasiness about those chemicals, with toy retailers acknowledging that parents do not want to unwittingly provide their young children with toys that could prove hazardous to their health. The amendment I hope to enter levels the playing field in the toy industry, requiring every toy store and manufacturer to comply with the standards being voluntarily put in place.

I do wish to underscore an important point: This voluntary action, while highly commendable, should not take the place of an official regulatory standard.

Candidly, I can't imagine why we have waited this long. We always wait until the States take action. Some manufacturers have marketed products as phthalate free, but tests conducted by independent laboratories have found phthalates. Parents wishing to purchase phthalate-free toys must be able to know what it is they are buying. I firmly believe only a legal standard with the full weight of the law and potential legal consequences behind it will make that guarantee.

I wish to read from a letter from the Breast Cancer Fund:

On behalf of the Breast Cancer Fund and our 70,000

supporters across the nation, I am writing to express our

strong support for your amendment to the Consumer Product

Safety Commission Reform Act . . . which would prohibit the

manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children's

toys and child care articles that contain phthalates.

It goes on to describe phthalates. It is signed by Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., Executive Director.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Many organizations support the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to have a list of those printed in the Record.

It has been a long time since I had a small child, but I used glass nursing bottles, not fancy flexible bottles. I used cloth diapers. The toys were not as flexible as they are today. My daughter grew up fine. One of the real hazards of this society is chemicals and how chemicals are used, and we don't know how they are used. When it comes to children's toys, I didn't know you could make plastic that way, so soft, so flexible. The reason you can is because of all the chemicals added to it. When these chemicals have a toxic factor and you know these chemicals are going in a child's mouth and you know they leach out of the plastic into the child's system, it simply isn't right. We ought to stop it.

People out there know that. People out there want this. I would have liked to have taken the time to have had a committee hearing on this. But candidly, this bill came up. And because this is already law in so many places--the European Union, 5 other nations, California, 8 other States ready to pass it--and you have retailers who understand and are willing to take voluntary action, it seemed to me the legal standard should be established. That is what this bill does.

I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I wish to address a question to the distinguished chairman of the committee who has done fine work on this bill. I would at some point like a vote on this amendment, if possible. I am happy to set it aside if that is helpful and not ask for the yeas and nays at this time, but I do want to vote. I believe children are at stake in this.

I appreciate that. Out of deference to the Senator from Arkansas, I am happy to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman and Menendez be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.