Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I honor the service of a great Arkansan. Captain Larry G. Robertson will retire at the end of this month after proudly serving in the Arkansas State Police for 32 years, providing protection and assistance to Arkansans across the State.

Captain Robertson's record of accomplishment spans three decades. He began his law enforcement career in 1973 as Star City, AR, chief of police before he was commissioned on January 17, 1977, as a state trooper assigned to the highway patrol division, troop E headquartered in Dumas, AR. Robertson distinguished himself in the line of duty and worked his way up the promotion ladder quickly from the rank of sergeant, to lieutenant, and finally, in 1999, to the rank of captain, highway patrol commander, troop F, the largest geographical troop in the State covering nine counties in southeast Arkansas.

Under Captain Robertson's leadership as troop F commander, his troopers consistently led the State in DWI arrests and other activities despite having fewer personnel than most other troops. His dedication to keeping his fellow Arkansans safe extended beyond the highway patrol division. During his 30 years of service, he led the Arkansas motor vehicle inspection team and served as a sniper and later commander of troop E special response team.

Captain Robertson retires from the Arkansas State Police on June 30, 2009. His commitment to excellence sets an example for not only his fellow law enforcement officers, for whom he is a mentor and friend, but also for those in the civilian community he worked diligently to protect. Although he will be missed in the line of duty, I wish him continued success in his retirement and thank him for his service to our great State of Arkansas.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Brownback, Bayh, Isakson, and Chambliss. The Critical Access Flexibility Act of 2009 will return to States the flexibility needed to help preserve local hospitals that serve rural communities.

Hospitals are often the largest employers in rural America. They provide much needed jobs and are facing serious financial difficulties during this economic downturn. Without immediate relief, many small hospitals are at serious risk of closure, job loss, or reductions in patient services. Rural areas most often have sicker, older, and poorer populations. In these difficult times, it is crucial that we protect hospitals serving our rural communities.

A Critical Access Hospital, CAH, is a hospital that is certified to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare. The reimbursement that CAHs receive is intended to improve their financial performance and thereby reduce hospital closures. CAHs are certified under a different set of Medicare conditions of participation that are more flexible than those used for acute care hospitals. In order for a hospital to be classified as a CAH, it must meet a number of conditions including a distance requirement that it must be 35 miles away from the nearest hospital. Prior to enactment of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, hospitals that were designated as ``necessary providers'' by a State could be exempt from the distance requirement.

I am joining with Senators Brownback, Bayh, and Isakson today to introduce legislation that restores a state's authority to waive the mileage requirements if all other requirements are met and the State designates the facility as a necessary provider. Existing requirements that cannot be waived include requiring that CAHs be nonprofit or public hospitals in a rural area, offer 24-hour emergency room services, and have no more than 25 acute care inpatient beds.

There are at least two communities in my State where changing conditions are threatening small town hospitals, and restoring the flexibility for States to make exemptions for the distance requirement would help residents of these communities continue to be able to receive necessary medical care from a local hospital. I know from talking to my colleagues in the Senate and to health care providers that this is the case throughout rural America. In recent years, there have been legislative efforts for single hospitals to be singled out and granted an exemption to the distance requirement. I believe the best way to address this problem is to have a uniform national policy that gives States the flexibility they need.

I want to thank Senators Brownback, Bayh, Isakson, and Chambliss for their work, leadership and support on this very important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Brownback, Bayh, Isakson, and Chambliss. The Critical Access Flexibility Act of 2009 will return to States the flexibility needed to help preserve local hospitals that serve rural communities.

Hospitals are often the largest employers in rural America. They provide much needed jobs and are facing serious financial difficulties during this economic downturn. Without immediate relief, many small hospitals are at serious risk of closure, job loss, or reductions in patient services. Rural areas most often have sicker, older, and poorer populations. In these difficult times, it is crucial that we protect hospitals serving our rural communities.

A Critical Access Hospital, CAH, is a hospital that is certified to receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare. The reimbursement that CAHs receive is intended to improve their financial performance and thereby reduce hospital closures. CAHs are certified under a different set of Medicare conditions of participation that are more flexible than those used for acute care hospitals. In order for a hospital to be classified as a CAH, it must meet a number of conditions including a distance requirement that it must be 35 miles away from the nearest hospital. Prior to enactment of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, hospitals that were designated as ``necessary providers'' by a State could be exempt from the distance requirement.

I am joining with Senators Brownback, Bayh, and Isakson today to introduce legislation that restores a state's authority to waive the mileage requirements if all other requirements are met and the State designates the facility as a necessary provider. Existing requirements that cannot be waived include requiring that CAHs be nonprofit or public hospitals in a rural area, offer 24-hour emergency room services, and have no more than 25 acute care inpatient beds.

There are at least two communities in my State where changing conditions are threatening small town hospitals, and restoring the flexibility for States to make exemptions for the distance requirement would help residents of these communities continue to be able to receive necessary medical care from a local hospital. I know from talking to my colleagues in the Senate and to health care providers that this is the case throughout rural America. In recent years, there have been legislative efforts for single hospitals to be singled out and granted an exemption to the distance requirement. I believe the best way to address this problem is to have a uniform national policy that gives States the flexibility they need.

I want to thank Senators Brownback, Bayh, Isakson, and Chambliss for their work, leadership and support on this very important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this effort.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be permitted to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today's session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker. The legislation that we are introducing today is aptly named The Safe Roads Act of 2009, as it will go a long way toward improving the safety of our Nation's roads by closing loopholes that have allowed commercial truck and bus drivers to use and abuse drugs and continue to drive without receiving required treatment necessary to return to duty. The bill is designed to save lives by preventing unnecessary deaths on our Nation's roads.

Nearly every day Americans can open their newspapers to learn about a death caused by drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Sometimes, these drivers are behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a commercial bus, which due to their size and weight bring a destructive force on any road. On May 8th of this year, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported about a commercial bus driver involved in an accident on Interstate 40 near Forrest City, AR, in 2007 that resulted in four fatalities. The driver was reportedly under the influence of amphetamines, one of the substances tested for under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, testing regulations. The driver of this commercial vehicle has been sentenced to jail and four lives were lost as a result of the accident.

Some other similar accidents involving truck drivers that have occurred in recent years include: in October 2008, Kane County, IL, a truck driver rear-ended a passenger vehicle killing a woman. The truck driver was indicted for reckless homicide and driving under the influence of narcotics.

In January 2008, in Franklin County, AL, a truck driver was arrested for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol after crossing the center line and killing a woman in a head-on accident.

In July 2007, in Little Rock, AR, a truck driver killed a family of five in a crash. The driver admitted smoking crack cocaine a few hours before the crash.

In May 2007, Centre County, PA, a truck driver ran over a car killing a woman. The driver faces charges including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of suspected methamphetamines.

While drug abuse among the at least 3.4 million truck drivers in the industry is estimated by FMCSA to only represent 2 to 5 percent of the entire truck driving workforce, that still represents roughly 68,000 truck drivers that have a drug or alcohol abuse problem. That is a high and unacceptable risk that needs to be addressed in a serious fashion. Our goal is to prevent accidents of this nature, and I would like to briefly explain how we intend to do so.

Our bill will establish within the FMCSA a national drug and alcohol database and clearinghouse listing positive alcohol and drug test results or test refusals by commercial truck and bus drivers. The bill will expand current drug and alcohol testing regulations to require Medical Review Officers, MROs, and other FMCSA-approved agents conducting already-required testing to report positive test results and test refusals to the FMCSA drug and alcohol clearinghouse. Employers seeking new employees would then be required to not only follow the laws already in place for testing prospective employees, but they would also be required to examine the prospective employees' record in the FMCSA clearinghouse to determine if the prospective employee has recently failed or refused to take a drug and alcohol test. If the prospective employee has a positive test result or test refusal in the clearinghouse, an employer would not be allowed to hire the prospective employee unless it can be proven that he or she has not violated

the requirements of the testing program, or that he or she has fully completed a return-to-duty program as required by the testing program.

There are major loopholes that exist today in the current drug and alcohol testing regime. Drivers have a tendency to ``job-hop'' after failing drug and alcohol tests, moving from one company to another without reporting past drug and alcohol test failures. Some States have since closed this loophole by establishing clearinghouses similar to our proposal, but not all States have these laws, and they do not do anything to prevent drivers with past drug and alcohol test failures from moving State-to-State to seek and gain employment. Our legislation would go to considerable lengths in closing both of these well-known and well-reported loopholes. Our bill would also provide extensive privacy protection for individuals whose data is collected at the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse. The bill would provide individuals with the means to challenge records in the clearinghouse and rights of actions against those who misuse information contained in the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the FMCSA have acknowledged these loopholes. Both have published reports describing a national clearinghouse as a feasible, cost-effective measure to address this problem and improve highway safety. In addition, a clearinghouse is something that Congress has examined since implementing drug and alcohol testing requirements in 1995. In 1999, Congress required the FMCSA to evaluate the viability of a national clearinghouse database for positive test results and test refusals, and in 2004 the results of their study supported a need for such a system and revealed the safety benefits that would come from it. As recently as last year, the GAO released a report to Congress titled `Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and Keep Them off the Road' that recommended the establishment of a national database and clearinghouse of drivers who have tested positive or refused to test. There is a clear need to close these well-known loopholes, and I believe our bill goes a long way in that direction.

It is my hope that Congress will support this legislation and move forward quickly to enact this legislation. I believe it is an imperative step to enhance drug and alcohol testing requirements and improve pre-employment background reviews to reduce the number of accidents and needless deaths resulting from drivers that are under the influence of these types of substances.

I want to thank Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker for their hard work, leadership and support on this very important safety issue, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker. The legislation that we are introducing today is aptly named The Safe Roads Act of 2009, as it will go a long way toward improving the safety of our Nation's roads by closing loopholes that have allowed commercial truck and bus drivers to use and abuse drugs and continue to drive without receiving required treatment necessary to return to duty. The bill is designed to save lives by preventing unnecessary deaths on our Nation's roads.

Nearly every day Americans can open their newspapers to learn about a death caused by drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Sometimes, these drivers are behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a commercial bus, which due to their size and weight bring a destructive force on any road. On May 8th of this year, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported about a commercial bus driver involved in an accident on Interstate 40 near Forrest City, AR, in 2007 that resulted in four fatalities. The driver was reportedly under the influence of amphetamines, one of the substances tested for under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, testing regulations. The driver of this commercial vehicle has been sentenced to jail and four lives were lost as a result of the accident.

Some other similar accidents involving truck drivers that have occurred in recent years include: in October 2008, Kane County, IL, a truck driver rear-ended a passenger vehicle killing a woman. The truck driver was indicted for reckless homicide and driving under the influence of narcotics.

In January 2008, in Franklin County, AL, a truck driver was arrested for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol after crossing the center line and killing a woman in a head-on accident.

In July 2007, in Little Rock, AR, a truck driver killed a family of five in a crash. The driver admitted smoking crack cocaine a few hours before the crash.

In May 2007, Centre County, PA, a truck driver ran over a car killing a woman. The driver faces charges including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of suspected methamphetamines.

While drug abuse among the at least 3.4 million truck drivers in the industry is estimated by FMCSA to only represent 2 to 5 percent of the entire truck driving workforce, that still represents roughly 68,000 truck drivers that have a drug or alcohol abuse problem. That is a high and unacceptable risk that needs to be addressed in a serious fashion. Our goal is to prevent accidents of this nature, and I would like to briefly explain how we intend to do so.

Our bill will establish within the FMCSA a national drug and alcohol database and clearinghouse listing positive alcohol and drug test results or test refusals by commercial truck and bus drivers. The bill will expand current drug and alcohol testing regulations to require Medical Review Officers, MROs, and other FMCSA-approved agents conducting already-required testing to report positive test results and test refusals to the FMCSA drug and alcohol clearinghouse. Employers seeking new employees would then be required to not only follow the laws already in place for testing prospective employees, but they would also be required to examine the prospective employees' record in the FMCSA clearinghouse to determine if the prospective employee has recently failed or refused to take a drug and alcohol test. If the prospective employee has a positive test result or test refusal in the clearinghouse, an employer would not be allowed to hire the prospective employee unless it can be proven that he or she has not violated

the requirements of the testing program, or that he or she has fully completed a return-to-duty program as required by the testing program.

There are major loopholes that exist today in the current drug and alcohol testing regime. Drivers have a tendency to ``job-hop'' after failing drug and alcohol tests, moving from one company to another without reporting past drug and alcohol test failures. Some States have since closed this loophole by establishing clearinghouses similar to our proposal, but not all States have these laws, and they do not do anything to prevent drivers with past drug and alcohol test failures from moving State-to-State to seek and gain employment. Our legislation would go to considerable lengths in closing both of these well-known and well-reported loopholes. Our bill would also provide extensive privacy protection for individuals whose data is collected at the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse. The bill would provide individuals with the means to challenge records in the clearinghouse and rights of actions against those who misuse information contained in the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the FMCSA have acknowledged these loopholes. Both have published reports describing a national clearinghouse as a feasible, cost-effective measure to address this problem and improve highway safety. In addition, a clearinghouse is something that Congress has examined since implementing drug and alcohol testing requirements in 1995. In 1999, Congress required the FMCSA to evaluate the viability of a national clearinghouse database for positive test results and test refusals, and in 2004 the results of their study supported a need for such a system and revealed the safety benefits that would come from it. As recently as last year, the GAO released a report to Congress titled `Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and Keep Them off the Road' that recommended the establishment of a national database and clearinghouse of drivers who have tested positive or refused to test. There is a clear need to close these well-known loopholes, and I believe our bill goes a long way in that direction.

It is my hope that Congress will support this legislation and move forward quickly to enact this legislation. I believe it is an imperative step to enhance drug and alcohol testing requirements and improve pre-employment background reviews to reduce the number of accidents and needless deaths resulting from drivers that are under the influence of these types of substances.

I want to thank Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker for their hard work, leadership and support on this very important safety issue, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support its swift passage.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the amendment on usury from my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. As some of you know--not all but some of you--Arkansas has a very strict usury limit in its State constitution, and it is been there for a long time. In fact, it used to be even more restrictive. Back in the 1980s, the people went to the ballot box, and they changed the constitution and made it much less restrictive than it was originally, but it is still very restrictive by national standards. But what has happened nationally has changed things in Arkansas and put Arkansas at a disadvantage.

I know there have been bills here like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act in 1999. I know it was well intentioned. I know there were good reasons, good national reasons and good financial reasons and a lot of good reasons to do that. However, what that act did is it preempted the Arkansas State Constitution by permitting in- state banks to charge the same rate of interest as the home State of any out-of-State bank that has a branch in that State. It was not specifically designed for or against Arkansas, but it was in the bill, it was in the law, and it has been the law since 1999. What that did is it, in effect, nationalized the usury rate for banks. Arkansas banks can now charge a higher interest rate than they could before Gramm- Leach-Bliley.

The injustice occurs when you look at the lending institutions that are not banks--maybe the State Student Loan Authority, maybe captive finance companies, maybe other types of lenders that are not banks. What has happened is it has worked a hardship, and some of those lenders cannot do business in Arkansas; they cannot afford to. So many small businesses, family-owned businesses such as car dealers and furniture retailers, cannot finance their goods to Arkansas consumers. The Arkansas consumer, if they can do it, maybe goes to a bank or a credit union or some other lending institution, in many cases paying a pretty high interest rate in order to get the money to do business. This hurts the Arkansas business community. It hurts the Arkansas economy.

Right now, what has happened is, given the stimulus bill--there are many financing tools in the stimulus bill for constructing roads and schools, for building renewable energy projects, the Build America Bonds, et cetera. But Build America Bonds are not available in our State because of the lack of competitiveness in the bond market. Again, it is our interest rate.

Given the financial times we are in, we find we are put at a disadvantage. No one intended this. Congress never did, the White House never did, the Congress back in 1999 did not want this to happen. But it is where we find ourselves today.

The people of Arkansas have once again decided to put this issue on the ballot, and they are going to do it. It has been referred out to the people. The legislature made that decision. It is on the ballot. The problem is, it is not until November 2010. So we have a year and a half to try to struggle through this economy with this very difficult, very adverse usury limit in our State.

What we are asking, what Senator Lincoln and I are asking, given this amendment, is that we get temporary relief only through November 2010. This is just about an 18-month fix, to give us some relief during this time, get the credit flowing in our State the way it has been able to flow in other States, and let us take advantage of the stimulus bill, the stimulus package, the America Recovery Act we have already passed, that we all benefit in certain ways, to let us in the State of Arkansas have the full benefit. The Governor supports this, and members of the legislature support this. They have asked us to do this for the people of the State of Arkansas.

People need to understand what this amendment will do. It will permit the current interest rate not to exceed--once this is passed, the interest rate cannot exceed 17 percent. We are not talking about taking the usury rate completely out of our State law; we are talking about giving us some temporary relief, up to 17 percent. Again, when it comes to some of the financing vehicles, such as student loans and bonds of various types, this is crucial to letting investment happen in our State.

There is precedent for this. Congress enacted, several years ago, laws that preempted Arkansas' usury provision for, as I mentioned before, the banking industry and for some other businesses. So we have done this before. Again, I am not sure those laws just affected Arkansas; they probably affected a lot of States. But basically, right now Arkansas is the only State left that needs some relief under the current situation in which we find ourselves.

The way it works right now, to let you all know, in our State, the limit for usury--an interest rate in our State is 5.5 percent. And 5.5 percent is a very low rate. It is a historically low rate. But it is because the Fed rate and some of the other things have gone so low. Our rate is tied to those Fed rates, those national rates. Again, in a good economy, in most years that makes sense, but right now it does not.

So what Senator Lincoln and I are respectfully asking our colleagues to do is support her amendment, allow it to become law, allow Arkansas this temporary relief, not just to benefit from the stimulus bill we have already passed but also to benefit from--or at least find some relief in this very tight economy, to ease some credit in our State, to help the recovery in our State as we are hoping to find in every other State in the Union.

With that, I ask that when we do vote on the Lincoln amendment, we would all support it and that we would help relief come to all 50 States, not just 49 States. Again, this is temporary. It caps the interest rate at 17 percent, which by most standards is a very reasonable cap. It is something that will allow the credit to flow in our State and will allow student loans, the Build America Bond Program to have the full effect they need to have here in Arkansas.

With that, I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. President, today, I come to the floor to honor Cpl William Craig Comstock of Van Buren, AR. His life and service to our country embody the full measure of the Marine Corps motto, ``Semper Fidelis,'' meaning ``always faithful.''

We lost Corporal Comstock when he paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Iraq's Anbar Province. Comstock was on his second tour with the 2nd Supply Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 25, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expedition Force, Camp Lejeune, NC. Working as an ammunition technician on his first tour in Iraq, he earned a Purple Heart for his bravery after sustaining a gunshot wound in the knee. Ever faithful to his Corps, he volunteered in January to return to Iraq a second time. He told his family he wanted to make that sacrifice for his fellow marines who he knew were eager to return home to see their own.

Coporal Comstock was loved by many. Those who knew him remember him for his wide smile, independent spirit, and warm heart. He was proud to be a U.S. marine, and the Marines were proud to have him. His awards include the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Even before joining the Marines, family, colleagues, and friends say Coporal Comstock lived by the ``Semper Fidelis'' motto. As an Alma High School football star, he played on despite an injured shoulder, refusing to let his teammates down. One of his football teammates, Nick Harrison, will graduate from Marine Corps basic training next month. Harrison's mother said it was Coporal Comstock that inspired her son to enlist.

Coporal Comstock was a loyal teammate to his fellow U.S. marines and planned to make a career in military service. Coporal Comstock's memory will live on through his friend Nick Harrison and others like him who selflessly serve our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are grateful for his service and my prayers are with his family during this difficult time.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life, achievements, and memory of SGT Bradley Marshall of Little Rock, AR. He gave his life on July 31, 2007, defending citizens of the United States and advancing democracy throughout the world.

Sergeant Marshall served in the 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Airborne, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK. His bravery on behalf of this Nation is heroic. His service, professionalism and allegiance to this country will continue to serve as the standard bearer for which to honor our great Nation.

Friends and family described Bradley as athletic and fun-loving. He was a loyal and valued member of his church, community, and Nation. As a husband and father, Bradley loved his family greatly and always cherished their time together. His wife of 17 years, Gina Marshall, said of him ``Brad was the love of my life.'' His son Wesley remembers his dad stopping by his room each night to say, ``I love you.'' Tanner, Marshall's other son, put together a slide show presenting hundreds of pictures of his father.

He touched many lives and was respected by everyone that knew him. Bradley was known as the dependable man who made sure things got done in his own quiet way such as cutting the grass at church, remodeling a home for his former high school coach, doing chores around the house, and helping with vacations for the family. Bradley's church named their new Brad Marshall Family Life Center in honor

of him and the sacrifice he gave to this country.

Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the sacrifice SGT Bradley Marshall and his family have given to protecting our freedom.

Mr. President, today I honor the life and work of Morris O'Quin of Harrison, AR. Morris passed away unexpectedly on April 19, 2009, due to a sudden respiratory illness. I know the thoughts of many Arkansans and others around the country are with the O'Quin family, especially his wife of 21 years, Dana, and their children, Marrick and Morgan.

Morris devoted his life to public service and Arkansas agriculture. He most recently served as a Farm Service Agency--FSA--county director in Boone County, AR. In this capacity, he also served as a national board member for the National Association of Farm Service Agency State and County Office Employees--NASCOE--where he advocated on behalf of other employees and volunteers who served similar roles as public servants in the agricultural sector in Arkansas and throughout the country. He has been a lifelong advocate for agriculture.

Since coming to the Senate in 2003, I have had the benefit of getting to know Morris well during his frequent trips to Washington to meet with other leaders of the Farm Service Agency, advancing the mission and purpose of the Agency. He was an ambassador for the State of Arkansas and a tireless advocate for the FSA, its mission, and its employees. He understood Arkansas agriculture and the importance of the Agency in supporting continued production of agricultural products. His duty to the Farm Service Agency and the promotion of its mission were his passions.

I vividly remember working closely with Morris in 2005 to ensure that the Department of Agriculture did not irresponsibly move to reduce the essential services that the Farm Service Agency provides to farmers and ranchers through the county office structure. He explained to me that the county offices provide essential services to the farmer through face-to-face interactions and that shutting down multiple county offices without making needed technology upgrades and providing technical assistance for this transition would cause significant harm to our nation's farmers and ranchers.

His advocacy for FSA workers and the farm community in Arkansas along with his leadership within NASCOE helped me pass a critical amendment to 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill to prevent FSA county office closures and further consolidations. This amendment prevented the administration from closing over 700 county offices nationwide and ensured that the critical services provided by these offices would continue until the USDA developed technology upgrades needed to make such a transition, and until the USDA clearly explained the needs and benefits for making such drastic reforms. This was a tremendous accomplishment that would not have been possible without Morris's focus and leadership.

Morris understood that without the hard work and sacrifice of local FSA employees, many family farms would not have the resources necessary to make a living and provide America a safe and affordable food supply that we all too often take for granted. This understanding was behind his drive to convince me and other lawmakers of the importance of stopping the USDA initiative to diminish the role of FSA offices and employees.

Morris's most recent accomplishment revealed his care for the community. After the devastating Arkansas ice storms that hit in January of this year, Morris spent hours working to deliver essential FSA services to neighbors, farmers, and ranchers in Boone County and other parts of northern Arkansas. The 2009 ice storm caused extreme damage to northern Arkansas, and Morris stepped up to provide much needed assistance. Under much pressure, he was doing a tremendous job of providing Environmental Conservation Program funds to help get impacted farmers back on their feet and producing again. This is just one other example of his exemplary work in his capacity as a public servant.

While I will remember Morris for his work as a county director and a NASCOE advocate, I will remember him most for his kind and calm demeanor, his concern for the well-being of those around him, his tireless work on behalf of those who depended on him, and his character and integrity in all of his endeavors. He was a relatively quiet person, not a personality

that you get a lot of in Washington, but he was filled with pride for his work, the work of FSA employees, and American agriculture. He would always articulate the importance of these to me in the most clear, concise, and endearing terms. Meeting with him was always a pleasure as he carried a calmness about him that always reminded me of the best of Arkansas. Much like many Arkansans I know, he possessed a kind heart and a gentle spirit always putting others before him. He earned my enduring respect and admiration. I will remember him for his optimistic spirit, enjoyable personality, and humble and effective leadership.

It is with great sadness, that I come before the Senate today, but I know he has gone to a better place, and deservedly so. I am honored to have known him and worked with him during his time on Earth. I send his wife Dana and their two children my deepest condolences. Morris O'Quin will certainly be missed, but he will never be forgotten. I ask my colleagues to keep the O'Quin family, Morris's coworkers, and his friends in your thoughts and prayers in this most difficult time.

Mr. President, this amendment is a bad amendment. Last year, the Senate passed this legislation with 97 votes. It is a good bill. It bans lead in children's toys. It does so many other great things to make sure our marketplace is safe. It protects us from unsafe Chinese toys.

We need to vote against this amendment. The problem is not with the act. It is very clear from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where the Commissioner, who is not the Chairman, says that the single most important step that needs to be taken in furtherance of the implementation of the CPSIA at the agency is to have a third Commissioner who would also be a chairman appointed to lead the agency. Until then, any legislative fixes are premature.

The CPSC has the authority to fix all the problems that have been raised by the Senator from South Carolina.

I strongly urge that we vote for our children and vote no on the DeMint amendment.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak against an amendment filed by Senator Cornyn of Texas. The amendment deals with the ability of State attorneys general to hire outside counsel for various lawsuits they may be pursuing. I wish to talk about that amendment for a few minutes and tell my colleagues how that works in the real world.

One of the things we did when I was in the State attorney general's office is we looked at several cases on which we considered hiring outside counsel because the State did not have the resources to front the costs of the litigation. We ended up not retaining any outside counsel. We did not pursue those matters. Nonetheless, the fact that we had the ability to look at that option is very important for States. It is also very important for State sovereignty. In fact, I am not convinced--I have to look at the U.S. Constitution--I am not convinced that the U.S. Congress can limit a State's ability to file a lawsuit. My sense is that the States have that authority. They can do what they want to do. They are sovereign. My guess is that this amendment may be unconstitutional. I have not yet done a thorough analysis of it, but that is my suspicion.

I say this too. One of the points my colleagues need to remember about the State AGs is that most of them--I think over 42, 43, 44 State attorneys general are just like us: they are elected by the people. There are a few appointed one way or another--by a supreme court, a legislature, a Governor. That happens State to State, but the vast majority of them are elected just as we are. They have accountability. They are responsible to the people who elected them. There is that check and balance that already exists. I am not sure about other States because I don't know how their outside counsel statutes work, but in our State, in order for us to hire outside counsel, we have to go to the legislature and get their approval, and we also have to get the Governor to sign off on it. Again, States are going to be different on point.

Again, in Arkansas, we have another check and balance beyond just that the State attorney general is elected and is accountable to the people. There is also a check and balance between the State attorney general's office and the legislature and the Governor. Everyone has an interest to make sure this is done right and done well. It works very well in our State. If we had a lot of State attorneys general here, they would agree that it worked very well for them as well.

Another point I wish to address in the Cornyn amendment is the underlying premise of this amendment. My understanding is it is based on some language dealing with the Federal Trade Commission in the omnibus bill we are discussing today and will vote on later today. We have to recognize that the Federal Government does not always have the manpower or the attention span or the ability, for one reason or another, to go after some bad actors out there. The States do not always have that manpower, attention span, or ability either, but the fact that the States can help augment and supplement the enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission and other Federal agencies can be very good for the people of this country.

Again, we need to allow the States the flexibility to be on the team. They need to be on the team because these folks--again, most of them-- are elected by their people. Most of them have some sort of consumer protection function or some sort of public safety function. Most of them have an office that is ready, willing, and able to make sure their State's citizenry is protected and taken care of sometimes when the Federal Government cannot do it or is not able to do it or is not willing to do it. The State AG enforcement can be a very important part of that protection.

With regard to the narrow issue of whether States can hire outside counsel, let me speak about that point for a moment.

When I was elected to the State attorney general's office in Arkansas in 1998--we all remember the tobacco case, the big, mammoth tobacco case. I was elected and within weeks it settled. By the time I became attorney general, sworn into office, the case was over. It was done, and we were in the enforcement phase. The case itself was behind us.

One of the first things I had to do--this literally happened on the first day I was in office--is I had to undo an outside counsel agreement my predecessor had entered into. Here, again, not only have I never entered into an outside counsel agreement as an attorney general, but I undid one my predecessor tried to enter into. That puts me in a different position than most people because I had been around this issue a lot during my years in the attorney general's office.

The other point we need to keep in mind about the tobacco case--and this is just true for how State AGs work--one of the reasons, and I would say the primary reason, that the States brought that case in the first place is because Washington failed to act. Washington failed to act. We may remember those days in the nineties. President Clinton wanted to do something with the tobacco companies. He wanted to have a global settlement of these claims. I was not around then. A lot of my colleagues were around then

and remember the details of those discussions and the bill that came through. It got bogged down in the Congress. In fact, I remember listening to the news media saying it came like a Christmas tree-- everybody was adding an ornament as it went through the process. It never passed. It got burdened down, and it never passed and never got to the President's desk for his signature. So when Congress did not act, the States did.

We have seen that in other context as well. When there is a void, when there is a vacuum and the Federal Government is not out there trying to take care of an issue, whatever it may be, oftentimes the States want action. It could be the Governors, it could be the State AGs, it could be the State legislatures, but--what is the old saying about power abhors a vacuum? That is what happens in this country. Again, we need to keep the States' flexibility in bringing lawsuits if they need to do that.

The other point we need to keep in mind is that a lot of today's litigation, a lot of the litigation the States are either involved in or are looking at is very complex and very expensive. I personally believe that an outside counsel contract can make a lot of sense. Again, we looked at these contracts when I was in the attorney general's office. We never did one, but we looked at them very closely because there are cases where it is very complex, it is very expensive, and you can structure an agreement with an outside counsel. It is not a get-rich-quick scheme by the outside lawyers, by the plaintiffs' attorneys, but it really is good for public policy, and if it is done right and done well, the public interest is very much served.

I think we should look at the Cornyn amendment. With all due respect to my colleague and friend from Texas, I think we should vote against the Cornyn amendment. We should not limit the States' ability to hire outside counsel if they feel they need to. Let the States make that decision. As I mentioned before, constitutionally, I am not sure we have the authority to limit the States anyway.

In the end, the interest of our people back home would be disserved if we adopted this amendment because what we would do would be to take some of the authority, some of the ability away from the State to protect its citizenry. As this amendment is voted on--apparently later this afternoon; I don't know exactly when it will be voted on--as it is voted on, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the Cornyn amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Cornyn amendment, and I do this for three reasons. First, the Federal Trade Commission does not have the resources to pursue all bad actors in the lending markets under their jurisdiction.

The States need the ability to enforce what the FTC is doing in their State. Occasionally State governments do not have adequate resources or the expertise on these very complicated matters. Sometimes they need outside counsel. And in order to get outside counsel, they need to put that in a contingency fee in many cases.

Also, I have great concern that this amendment may be unconstitutional. I am not sure that the Congress can limit the States' ability to bring an action or to structure a contract for outside counsel.

So for those three reasons, I would respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against the Cornyn amendment.

I thank everybody for their hard work.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in full support of renewing and improving the Children's Health Insurance Program. In Arkansas we know this program as ARKids First, Part B. In my part of the country, the program ensures that low-income children get the doctor visits and medicines they need when they are sick and the checkups they need when they are healthy. This program has been highly effective, and I believe the bill before us will build upon that success.

Let me tell one story. In 2007, this program covered more than 64,000 Arkansas children and more than 4.4 million children nationally. There is a young boy named Connar in a little town called Poyen, AR. Poyen is in Grant County. The population of the whole town is 272 people. It is on a State highway--229--in part of our State that is challenged in getting health care to its citizens. At 5 years old, he had very serious hearing problems. He underwent multiple surgeries to restore his hearing. Without the Children's Health Insurance Program, his grandmother would have never been able to afford the appointments and medical care. The good news is, today, after these surgeries and after his treatment, he has overcome his hearing loss and his related developmental delays.

What that means is he will now be able to enter kindergarten with other kids his age. We prepared him for a lifetime of success through this program. That means he will not have to have special education, he will not have to have other programs available to him for him to function in society. We made the downpayment on his future with the Children's Health Insurance Program.

But he is lucky because that same year, 2007, there were 9.4 million children who went without access to doctors, lifesaving prescription drugs, immunizations, preventive screenings, and the basic medical care they need. That is 1 out of every 9 children in this country who slipped through the cracks between Medicaid and private insurance.

Since then, since 2007, pink slips have multiplied and, more than ever, parents are making the tough decision to provide their family with a roof over their heads and forgo health care coverage. When these kids don't get medicine and proper medical care, we see them in emergency rooms in a lot of pain and at a greater cost to the taxpayer.

As you know, there have been studies--one I am familiar with in the State of Arizona, but there have been many other studies--that compare what this program costs to the cost of not having the program. It is actually cheaper to the taxpayer, much cheaper to society in the big picture to have this program get these kids the medical care they need when they need it.

This body will have an important vote to cast this week that will determine who will see a doctor and who will not. Will children such as Connar receive the critical care they need or will we abandon them, abandon him like we have 9 million others?

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to turn this moral issue into an ideological debate. Children deserve a healthy start in life regardless of the parents' wealth. Senators Baucus and Rockefeller have produced a compassionate and cost-effective bill that provides this opportunity for millions of children. That is what I want for the children in my State of Arkansas and for the children of our Nation.

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