Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. First, I wish to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on the supplemental spending bill. This has been a well-crafted and pragmatic piece of legislation, but it has sometimes been difficult in putting this together and moving it to the floor. So I want to thank the leaders on the Appropriations Committee and the various subcommittees who worked to get this done. This bill will greatly benefit our Nation's men and women in uniform. This bill also ensures that disaster victims have the services and assistance needed to help them recover from both natural and manmade disasters. I greatly appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member along with all of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. Secondly, I wish to discuss amendment No. 4282 regarding FEMA's flood map modernization program. I wish to thank Senator Cochran and his staff for their hard work and diligence in preparing this amendment with me, as well as Senators Lincoln, Vitter, and Brownback, who are all cosponsors. I greatly appreciate their contributions as well. The purpose of this amendment is to address concerns regarding economic development and the ability of communities to provide input in the development of new flood insurance rate maps. The amendment will do three simple things. First, it would allow an extension of the flood elevation and Special Flood Hazard Area determination appeal period, upon request from an affected community. Second, it would prevent FEMA from using technicalities to circumvent requirements to study the economic impact of map modifications. Third, it would establish an arbitration panel for communities to appeal FEMA's proposed map modifications before a neutral third party. This sort of appeal from an independent third party is already allowed by statute, but it is rarely used. The amendment would set up an arbitration panel and highlight the ability of communities to use this as a manner of appeal. As most of my colleagues know, I have been talking about FEMA's flood maps for the last several years. At first, I was working with a few other Senators to address the implementation of the program. Senator Lincoln also has been a very determined advocate in this area. But now there are Senators representing 13 different States who have expressed an interest in addressing some common problems with the map modernization program. Let me emphasize that I support modernizing our maps. I think that is good to do. I think it is something we should do. I think it is a good use of time and effort and resources to do that. However, what I am concerned about is that FEMA seems to be determined to use this as a revenue raiser for FEMA and the flood insurance program. The way they have it set up is they will make determinations and basically greatly expand existing flood plains into areas that--because of levees and other flood control management efforts, costing billions of dollars, by the way--are not currently at risk for any flooding--or hardly any risk at all. But the FEMA flood maps, I guess on a technicality--as the maps are completed--would say they would be in a flood plain. The bottom line effect of this is it creates a huge revenue source for FEMA. What happens, once they greatly expand the map of the flood plain, is that suddenly many of the people and businesses in that area have to purchase flood insurance. In our State, we have looked at the numbers, and that flood insurance could be as little as $100 a year, or it could be well over $2,500 a year. This has a significant impact on people's mortgage payments and their various loans for their businesses. But here is what we have to keep in mind. From our perspective--and again, we are not the only State that does this; many States have river systems that flood--these people are already paying for flood insurance. What they are doing is they are paying for their local levees to protect their communities. As long as those levees are in compliance, and as long as there is not any real-life risk of a flood in a particular area, I think it is unjust that these people would be charged for flood insurance. Some of the common problems with FEMA's approach are the lack of communication and outreach to local stakeholders; a lack of coordination between FEMA and the corps--that is the Corps of Engineers--in answering questions about flood mapping, flood insurance, and flood control infrastructure repairs; a lack of recognition of locally funded flood control projects; a lack of recognition of historical flood data; inadequate time and resources to complete the repairs to flood control structures before the maps are finalized--in other words, they may find a problem, and on day one, when they say you have a problem, even though the problem can be fixed very quickly, or within a year, let's say, they still are going to try to tag people with flood insurance in those affected areas. The other thing they have not considered is the potential impacts these new flood maps might have on economic development, particularly in small and rural communities. Let me give an example of what we are talking about here on the ground in Arkansas. And again, if Senators think they do not have this problem, they may not today, but it is coming. Because as they redraw all these flood maps, this is going to be coming. I don't know about all 50 States, but in well over half the States it will, as they go through this flood map redrawing. So let me give an example. In our State, of course the boot heel of Missouri is the very northeastern corner of our State. There is a levee that is actually in Missouri, and when the Corps of Engineers inspected it, it has a sand boil. Now a sand boil is a problem for a levee, no doubt about it. There are varying degrees, and this particular one apparently wasn't that bad, but nonetheless there is a sand boil there, which means the water is starting to seep under the levee. It is totally repairable. They need a little time to fix it, but it is totally repairable. The concern we have--and when we talk to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, we are not getting any comfort that our fears are not completely and 100 percent justified--is once they find that sand boil up in the very northern part of the St. Francis River Basin, they are going to say the whole basin is out of compliance. In other words, in the real world, they could have a leak there. I hope they never do, and I hope they can repair it, but they could have a leak there. They could have a 100-year flood, and it could actually cause a problem to that levee. But think about it. The flooding would be local to that levee. It wouldn't be 50 miles away in a totally different part of the river basin area. So FEMA, in my view, is doing things here that are very heavyhanded, very bureaucratic. I do believe they are searching for revenue based on the huge amount of money that FEMA had to spend on Katrina and some other disasters. FEMA's books are way out of balance as a result of that, and I see this as a revenue raiser for them. The problem is, as I said, they are going to go into areas that have very strong levees that will never flood. Some of these levees are built to well over the 100-year standard. In many places in Arkansas they built them well over that, because in 1927--and there have been a few years since--we had very serious flooding problems in our State. So in the eastern part of our State, people believe in levees because they have needed them before. The levees have saved them before. The levees have breached before, so they have been on both sides of that equation. They believe in levees and they understand the value of them. But that is not just true in Arkansas. You can go to Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois, not just up and down the Mississippi, but up and down lots of other river systems in this country and this problem is coming to your State. If you haven't seen it yet, you will. This problem is coming to your State. What we are trying to do with this amendment is to at least--and, personally, I think we ought to have various remedies available in this FEMA remapping project--at a minimum set up the ability to have an arbitration panel, so if the Corps of Engineers and FEMA make a finding, the community at least has a chance to appeal and, hopefully, effect a remedy before they get hit with the flood insurance requirement. There is a lot more to this story, but I am not going to bore my colleagues and talk too much about it today because it is not the pending amendment. But I would very much appreciate my colleagues' consideration. I hope we will be able to be successful in attaching this. It basically doesn't cost any money. There is no grant program. At one point we were talking about a grant program, but we don't have that in here. We set up an arbitration panel, and the membership of the arbitration panel would have expertise in hydrology, administrative law, and/or economic development. We would let the Corps of Engineers provide the technical guidance, which I think would be very valuable. Also, we allow communities an appeal period, where they can appeal within 120 days, and it also clarifies under some circumstances that communities could be at least partially reimbursed for the cost of the appeal. That is already in existing law. That provision is already in there, but we are making it clear that the rule would apply to this process. Mr. President, I thank you for your patience in listening to me. I know we have other Senators who, if they are not on the floor at the moment, are waiting to speak, so I wish to mention that my amendment, No. 4282--I am not calling it up at the moment, but I wish to at the earliest possible moment. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4282, that I will speak on. I will not call it up at this moment. However, my intent is to call it up at the soonest appropriate time. I rise today to speak on this amendment and to also ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I honor two brave policemen from West Memphis, Sergeant Brandon Paudert and Officer Bill Evans, and pay tribute to their lives and service to their community. Sergeant Paudert and Officer Evans lost their lives in the line of duty doing what they loved most: protecting their community. They were both part of the West Memphis Police Department's drug interdiction team, a specialized unit that fought drug trafficking on Arkansas's highways. They were on the front lines in the war against drugs, fighting to keep our streets clean and our children safe. Sergeant Paudert's sense of duty was in his blood--his father, Bob Paudert, is West Memphis's police chief. Sergeant Paudert's loved ones described him as a kind, honorable man, devoted to his family and the force. He married his high school sweetheart, Kim, whom he had dated since they were just 14 years old, and had three children whom he loved dearly. He was always there for friends and fellow officers, lifting up their spirits and lending a hand when one was needed. Officer Evans shared Sergeant Paudert's call to serve; he was a fourth-generation law enforcement official, with both his father and his grandfather serving in the Crittenden County Sheriff's Department. He was the team's ``maintenance man'' with an ability to fix anything he encountered, and had a wonderful sense of humor, always able to get a laugh out of his colleagues and friends. A father of two with a fiance, those who knew him said Evans lived his life by a simple code: ``Enjoy your life. Love your family. Enjoy your work.'' I join all Arkansans in lifting up the family and friends of Sergeant Paudert and Officer Evans during this difficult time. In a fitting tribute, a sign on the fence of the West Memphis High School's football field says: ``Fallen, so we can stand.'' These two heroes may have fallen, but we will continue to stand for the values and principles for which they so selflessly gave their lives.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I honor LCpl. Richard R. Penny from Greenland, AR, and pay tribute to his life and service to our country. Lance Corporal Penny was a machine gunner assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force based out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In March of this year, he was deployed to Afghanistan's Helmand Province, an opium-producing region at the epicenter of the war on terror. He served with valor and distinction, earning numerous awards, including the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. Lance Corporal Penny was an ``all-American'' man, an all-conference defensive tackle for Greenland High School's football team, and voted ``class favorite'' by his peers. He loved to hunt and fish and drive backroads in his four-wheel-drive pickup he called ``Skeeter.'' Those who knew him described him as ``tough as nails,'' and said the word ``quit'' was not part of his vocabulary. Greenland police officer Michael Huber perhaps best described Lance Corporal Penny's life and the impact he had on others when he said to a local TV station: ``Here in our town, there are people we look up to. Richard Penny was one of those. He'll still be somebody we can look up to. Because he paid the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of freedom.'' Today I join all Arkansans in lifting up Lance Corporal Penny's family, friends, and all those who loved him during these challenging times. We will never forget his courage, his honor, and the life he gave for our country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, at this point I wish to thank my colleague from the State of Maine. She has been a great leader in small business matters. She and I serve on the Small Business Committee together, and we have been working for, I guess, 3 years now on the Regulatory Flexibility Act and other related efforts to try to make sure the proper environment exists in America for small businesses to thrive and for entrepreneurs to be successful. This amendment would make certain that key provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which require that Federal agencies fully consider during the rulemaking process the economic impact on small firms, would apply to the CFPB created in the bill offered by Senator Dodd. This amendment would ensure that the newly created CFPB, when it is promulgating its rules and regulations, fully consider the economic impact those rules and regs would impose on our Nation's almost 30 million small firms, which have created 64 percent of all the new jobs in this country over the last 15 years and, undoubtedly, will drive this Nation's economic recovery. The last point I wish to make before I make a few closing comments is the fact that we, as the Senate and as the House, should be aware and should address the fact that onerous regulations can crush entrepreneurial spirit for America's small businesses. In 2009 alone-- last year--during a recession, there were close to 70,000 pages added to the Federal Register of new regulations. The annual cost of complying with Federal regulations totals about $1.1 trillion. I am not saying we should end all regulation. I think most of these-- or at least a lot of these--make a lot of sense and there are good reasons for a lot of them. But we have to be careful and we have to understand the impact that these regulations have on small businesses. We want our small businesses to thrive. We want our small businesses to be successful. If we are not careful, an agency such as the CFPB--and there are many other Federal agencies--can create rules and relations that actually choke off business opportunities for entrepreneurs and for small businesses. So I am proud to join my friend and colleague from Maine on this amendment, and I would encourage other colleagues to look at this amendment, look at the text of the amendment. I have enjoyed working with the Senator from Maine, over the last few years, when it comes to trying to help small businesses. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3808

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that when our Founding Fathers laid out article III of the Constitution, they had people such as Price Marshall in mind. He is smart. He is hard-working. He is a family man. He is involved in his community. He is involved in his church and in his legal profession. He is an elected member of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. When he was in private practice, he had a reputation as a lawyer's lawyer. I join Senator Lincoln in giving him my highest recommendation. I appreciate all my colleagues voting yes on Price Marshall.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the related problems of corruption at the U.S. border with Mexico, turf wars between Federal investigators of corruption, and inadequate screening for corruption of law enforcement personnel. Solving these problems is crucial to ensuring we have a system that keeps drugs out, guns in, and maintains an effective defense against efforts by drug cartels to infiltrate parts of the Department of Homeland Security tasked with border security. The Mexican cartels that dominate drug trafficking into the U.S. are sophisticated, ruthless, and well-funded. They operate widely in Mexico through bribery and corruption and smuggle up to $25 billion of illegal drugs as well as people into the U.S. They also smuggle illegal guns and drug money back into Mexico. In 2009, drug violence in Mexico resulted in over 9,600 murders. Already this year there have been over 3,300 murders. Some of the illegal drugs and money goes to and through my State of Arkansas. The cartels used to operate differently in the U.S. relying mostly on stealth and a U.S. distribution network that reportedly includes operations in an estimated 230 American cities. In my State, the network includes the cities of Little Rock, Fort Smith and Fayetteville. The heightened U.S. border defenses have put a squeeze on cartels. They have tried to regain an advantage by exporting to the U.S. their experience and success in bribing and corrupting government officials who can facilitate their business. Today, I am introducing legislation and sending a letter with three other senators to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to reverse what has become a successful campaign by drug cartels to infiltrate U.S. law enforcement. At risk here is more than drug trafficking. National security is also threatened because border weaknesses can be exploited by terrorists to transport operatives and weapons into the U.S. At a recent hearing I chaired in a subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, witnesses revealed that while an array of U.S. Government agencies have been targeted for infiltration by the cartels, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, known as CBP, has been shockingly susceptible to the threat. Federal investigators testified that 129 CBP officials have been arrested on corruption charges since 2003. In addition, the DHS Inspector General opened 576 allegations of corruption within CBP in 2009. Now, the vast majority of CBP officers are good, decent, hard-working people. That is why we need to help them root out those that are corrupting the system. Some of CBP's susceptibility to infiltrate is the result of the high- threat environment in which CBP works. But it is also because the dramatic increases in staff levels since 2003--which is a good thing-- means that the agency doesn't always meet its own guidelines for screening of job applicants and existing employees. That is not as good, and we need to take action to make sure that the processes in place to uncover infiltration and corruption are effective. Established personnel integrity policies call for polygraph examinations and background investigations of all job applicants for CBP law enforcement positions as part of the screening process prior to being offered employment, however less than 15 percent received the full screening in 2009. CBP also has a 10,000 person backlog on these reinvestigations of existing personnel. There are also indications that there may be coordination and information sharing problems between the DHS components responsible for investigating corruption. Evidence of these problems include a December 16, 2009, memo from the DHS Inspector General's office and a March 30, 2010, Washington Post article detailing a lack of coordination between Federal investigators regarding corruption cases. As we seem to learn over and over again, cooperation and coordination by Federal, state, and local law enforcement is essential to identifying and defeating threats to our national security. The threat of infiltration by drug cartels is no different. I am deeply concerned that the department responsible for the security of our homeland is falling short in these important areas. To address these problems, I am sending a letter along with Senators Feingold, Wyden, and Burris to DHS Secretary Napolitano requesting that she resolve turf issues between investigators and integrity screening shortcomings at CBP. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be inserted in the Record after my statement. I am also introducing the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010. My bill requires DHS to address the integrity screening problems at CBP and make progress reports to Congress. Specifically, it requires that DHS take such actions as necessary to ensure that the backlog of periodic background investigations is cleared up within 60 days. It also requires job applicants to receive the polygraph test as required by DHS policy within 2 years. Finally, I close with a message about and to the men and women at Customs and Border Protection. Despite the unfortunate actions of a few that dishonor a proud tradition at CBP, we know the vast majority of CBP employees are patriotic, honest, and hard-working. We know and value the contribution they make to the safety of America and the risks that they take on our behalf. They deserve and have our thanks, support, and commitment to help them weed out bad elements in their organization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the related problems of corruption at the U.S. border with Mexico, turf wars between Federal investigators of corruption, and inadequate screening for corruption of law enforcement personnel. Solving these problems is crucial to ensuring we have a system that keeps drugs out, guns in, and maintains an effective defense against efforts by drug cartels to infiltrate parts of the Department of Homeland Security tasked with border security. The Mexican cartels that dominate drug trafficking into the U.S. are sophisticated, ruthless, and well-funded. They operate widely in Mexico through bribery and corruption and smuggle up to $25 billion of illegal drugs as well as people into the U.S. They also smuggle illegal guns and drug money back into Mexico. In 2009, drug violence in Mexico resulted in over 9,600 murders. Already this year there have been over 3,300 murders. Some of the illegal drugs and money goes to and through my State of Arkansas. The cartels used to operate differently in the U.S. relying mostly on stealth and a U.S. distribution network that reportedly includes operations in an estimated 230 American cities. In my State, the network includes the cities of Little Rock, Fort Smith and Fayetteville. The heightened U.S. border defenses have put a squeeze on cartels. They have tried to regain an advantage by exporting to the U.S. their experience and success in bribing and corrupting government officials who can facilitate their business. Today, I am introducing legislation and sending a letter with three other senators to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to reverse what has become a successful campaign by drug cartels to infiltrate U.S. law enforcement. At risk here is more than drug trafficking. National security is also threatened because border weaknesses can be exploited by terrorists to transport operatives and weapons into the U.S. At a recent hearing I chaired in a subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, witnesses revealed that while an array of U.S. Government agencies have been targeted for infiltration by the cartels, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, known as CBP, has been shockingly susceptible to the threat. Federal investigators testified that 129 CBP officials have been arrested on corruption charges since 2003. In addition, the DHS Inspector General opened 576 allegations of corruption within CBP in 2009. Now, the vast majority of CBP officers are good, decent, hard-working people. That is why we need to help them root out those that are corrupting the system. Some of CBP's susceptibility to infiltrate is the result of the high- threat environment in which CBP works. But it is also because the dramatic increases in staff levels since 2003--which is a good thing-- means that the agency doesn't always meet its own guidelines for screening of job applicants and existing employees. That is not as good, and we need to take action to make sure that the processes in place to uncover infiltration and corruption are effective. Established personnel integrity policies call for polygraph examinations and background investigations of all job applicants for CBP law enforcement positions as part of the screening process prior to being offered employment, however less than 15 percent received the full screening in 2009. CBP also has a 10,000 person backlog on these reinvestigations of existing personnel. There are also indications that there may be coordination and information sharing problems between the DHS components responsible for investigating corruption. Evidence of these problems include a December 16, 2009, memo from the DHS Inspector General's office and a March 30, 2010, Washington Post article detailing a lack of coordination between Federal investigators regarding corruption cases. As we seem to learn over and over again, cooperation and coordination by Federal, state, and local law enforcement is essential to identifying and defeating threats to our national security. The threat of infiltration by drug cartels is no different. I am deeply concerned that the department responsible for the security of our homeland is falling short in these important areas. To address these problems, I am sending a letter along with Senators Feingold, Wyden, and Burris to DHS Secretary Napolitano requesting that she resolve turf issues between investigators and integrity screening shortcomings at CBP. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be inserted in the Record after my statement. I am also introducing the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010. My bill requires DHS to address the integrity screening problems at CBP and make progress reports to Congress. Specifically, it requires that DHS take such actions as necessary to ensure that the backlog of periodic background investigations is cleared up within 60 days. It also requires job applicants to receive the polygraph test as required by DHS policy within 2 years. Finally, I close with a message about and to the men and women at Customs and Border Protection. Despite the unfortunate actions of a few that dishonor a proud tradition at CBP, we know the vast majority of CBP employees are patriotic, honest, and hard-working. We know and value the contribution they make to the safety of America and the risks that they take on our behalf. They deserve and have our thanks, support, and commitment to help them weed out bad elements in their organization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Roberts Motion to Commit

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that today I honor U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan J. Richardson from Bald Knob, AR, and pay tribute to his life and service to our country. Sergeant Richardson was a fire support specialist who lost his life from wounds suffered when his unit came under fire in Khost Province, Afghanistan. He was a member of the C Company, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, and had previously served in Iraq with the same unit. He was never afraid to go where the action was, knowing that the line of fire was where he was needed most. Sergeant Richardson served both tours with courage and distinction, receiving awards including the Army Commendation Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, and National Defense Service Medal. Sergeant Richardson graduated from Bald Knob High School in 2004, where he was a talented student and excelled on the football team. His family and friends described him as an honorable man, devoted to his wife and family. These qualities were readily apparent on the battlefield, where his comrades called him ``the kind of leader soldiers strive to emulate.'' He was committed to serving others, and while he could have done a great many things with his young life, he chose to serve our Nation in the military. This commitment to serve is, to me, what makes Sergeant Richardson a true hero. My thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Richardson's wife Rachel, parents, Sharon and Jeffery, and all those who loved him during this heartbreaking time. As John 15:13 states: ``Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.'' Sergeant Richardson had the greatest love for his country, and his country will always remember his selfless service.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I would like to speak on my amendment here for a few minutes, somewhat in response to Senator Sessions but really more just to ask my colleagues to please consider voting for the Pryor amendment. This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a friend of mine in Arkansas. He is kind of a member of the deficits-do-not- matter club. This was probably 6 years ago. I was a pretty new Senator here. I said: Look, we have to start to get this thing turned around. Some of the policies we have done here are not good, not sustainable for the country. He told me back then that deficits do not matter. And where I disagree with him and others like him I said: Look, anytime any of us walk into a bank or some other financial institution and want to borrow money, the first question they ask is, How are you going to pay it back? That is what they want to know: How are you going to pay it back? The problem we have had around here for years now is that we have no plan to pay this money back--none. We have no plan to pay this money back, and that is why we are just pushing it off down the road to where, you know, we do not have to make the hard decisions. But I want to tell you right now, our children and grandchildren do not appreciate what we are doing to them. We have to take responsibility for us living beyond our means. The way I look at this is that in America for too long, we have lived beyond our means. Our government has done that. Corporate America has done that. There is too much debt in corporate America. We have seen that over the last year and a half. Also, individuals and families have done that. We have done that on a personal basis with too much debt. And we all need to take responsibility. We all need to manage that and manage our way out of that situation. My amendment basically, as much as anything, communicates to the American public, it communicates to the global economy, it communicates to all of the economists and all of those experts on Wall Street, all other places all around the world, that we are capable of making these difficult decisions and that we are willing to make the hard calls in order to get this done. I know one of the criticisms we are going to have on the Pryor amendment is that it may lead to raising taxes. Certainly, I hope it does not. But we have to be willing, in this Chamber and in that Chamber down the hall and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have to be willing to make these hard choices, these hard calls. That is what we call leadership and that is what we call democracy. People elect us to come to Washington to make difficult calls. The easiest thing we can do is to be fiscally irresponsible. It is like in our own personal house. Hey, I would love to have a bass boat. I would love to buy a new car every year. I would like to have a lake house. But I cannot afford those things. In this Nation, we have gotten to the point where we cannot afford to have it all. The Pryor amendment really gets us back in the zone where we can manage this fiscal picture we have, and hopefully what we can do, over the next 10, 12, 15 years, however long it is going to take, we can actually get back to a surplus and make a significant dent in paying off the national debt. I think we have to do that. It is imperative that we start now. That is what the Pryor amendment is about and really the biggest advantage over the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. Again, I have total respect for these two Senators. They have spent a long time on this. They have been working on this for a long time. But I think the limitation of their amendment and really the big shortfall there is that it only deals with discretionary spending. As I showed you earlier in the pie chart, that is a very small piece of the fiscal pie. We need to put it all on the table, and we need to show the American public we are serious. We need to show them that we are willing to take this on; that we have the discipline it requires to restore fiscal responsibility here in this government; that we can reduce the deficit, and that we can return our Nation once again back to a fiscally sound path. That is really what this issue is about today. I very strongly encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to look at the Pryor amendment. I encourage you to vote for mine. I think it is a more comprehensive approach than Senator Sessions' and Senator McCaskill's. As I said, I voted for that one twice before in previous iterations of it. It has changed a little bit. I voted for it before. But I have come to the conclusion that we need a comprehensive solution. We need to put it all on the table. And we need to show the leadership--this country is crying out for leadership. We need to show some leadership on this issue and show people we are serious and willing to do what it takes in order to get this done.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to look at my amendment. It reduces discretionary spending caps by $77 billion relative to President Obama's budget in 2011, 2012, and 2013. It also requires the fiscal commission to find an additional $77 billion to reduce the deficit. It moves the vote from 67 back to 60, as it is under our normal Senate rules. It also increases the chances of a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction. We need that around here. We need a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction. This reduction could potentially add $13 billion more in deficit reduction than what the Sessions-McCaskill amendment does. As much as I respect and appreciate all the work Senators Sessions and McCaskill did, I certainly would appreciate people voting for the Pryor amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes on my amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish about 3 minutes to respond to my colleagues. I commend both Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill for the work on their amendment. As I said, I voted for previous editions of it. I think it has one major flaw, and that is it only deals with discretionary spending. I know it does affect the deficit, and that is very important. But it focuses just on the spending. When we did multiyear discretionary spending caps--they were a key part of the 1990, 1993, 1997 deficit reduction patches--they worked. However, those deficit reduction patches looked at all spending-- mandatory and discretionary--as well as revenues. That is what our amendment does. It takes the whole picture. If we are going to walk the walk on having our fiscal house in order, we need to look at the entire picture, and I think we need to do it in a bipartisan way, as they did in previous Congresses when they made serious efforts to get the deficit under control. It needs to be bipartisan. One of the problems I have is, if we fix discretionary spending, it will be difficult for us to reach a bipartisan agreement on mandatory as well as the revenue pieces of our budget. Senator McCaskill mentioned this is a baby step. I don't know if it is a baby step. What they are proposing is a very solid first step to try to get our fiscal house in order. I am just concerned it might close the door. I wish to make this point in closing. If we look at these purple lines on this graph, we see these years are the Obama years. Certainly, he inherited a lot of things the first year, so the first year probably is not fair to give to him. If you look to these years, to the President's credit, he says he wants to freeze discretionary spending. He says he wants the purple lines to get shorter. That is good, but it is not enough. It is not enough. The President's budget, in his proposal, in my estimation, is not enough. We need to get this moving back in the right direction. If you look at just discretionary spending and throw in the military discretionary spending as well, that is about 25 percent of the budget--just discretionary alone. Domestic discretionary is only about 12 percent. But put those two together, and let's say it is about 25 percent. The real flaw in the McCaskill-Sessions is that we are using 25 percent of the budget to fix 100 percent of the budget. We need to put 100 percent of everything on the table so we can then use our good judgment and make those hard decisions to try to get us back to a balanced budget. We are not going to do this in 1 year. We are probably not going to do it in 5 years. I wish we could do it in 5 years. But these numbers are not enough, and we need to move it back in the right direction. My approach actually helps this picture quite a bit more than their pictures help. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Pryor amendment we are going to take up this afternoon and have a vote on. I wish to show my colleagues this chart I have in the Chamber that talks about America's fiscal condition. This chart came out of the CQ Today edition of Tuesday, February 2. As you can see, it takes the fiscal year 2011 revenue estimates over here, with this pie chart on the left, and it takes our proposed outlays with this other pie chart on the right. Of course, it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, if you look at these two numbers, it looks like we are taking in $2.5 trillion but we are sending out $3.8 trillion. That is a big problem. That means, once again, we are in deficit spending. We have to get our fiscal house in order. I do not know if my colleagues on both sides saw this reported this week, but earlier there was a story in the New York Times--and it has been reported in other publications--that Moody's is looking at the possibility of downgrading America's credit from AAA down to something lower than that because of the enormous national debt we have and the persistent annual deficits. This piece of the chart I think is very revealing, when you look at the money that is going out through the Federal Government. We see this purple slice. There are a couple of slices here of the purple pie chart, and we see one is $671 billion. That is nondefense discretionary spending. Then, on the national defense discretionary spending, it shows $744 billion, but everything else in here is mandatory spending or it is our interest on the national debt. This little green sliver here--it may be hard to see on television-- is actually what we are paying on the national debt. It is $251 billion in interest payments and paying back the national debt. Nonetheless, we see that the majority of the money we are spending is for mandatory spending. These are entitlements and various programs, things such as Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs and other mandatory spending. The amendment I have been working on this week tries to address our fiscal situation not merely by tapping into this discretionary spending, which, depending on which part of discretionary spending we are talking about, could be as little as 12 percent of the money we have going out of the system or it could be as much as 25 or 30 percent. It depends on how you calculate and all we include. We can't fix our fiscal house using discretionary spending only. I think one of the advantages of the Pryor amendment is we want to take the whole picture--all the mandatory spending, all the discretionary spending, and all the revenues--and use them to try to get our fiscal house in order. One of the best things about this chart that was in CQ Today is this graph. It shows where we start during the Carter years, and it goes all the way through the Obama years. So we have Carter, Reagan, George Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama, and we can see this purple line. Unfortunately, most of these years it is below zero. The line is our annual deficit. This yellowish-orangey line shows as a percent of GDP what our deficit is. One of the great things about this graph that gives me courage and gives me hope is that during the Clinton years, we went above the line. We actually went into surplus spending. We did it for the last 4 years of his administration. The thing I get hope from is we can do it again. We can do this. We can address this. If we do it in a bipartisan way, if we do it in a smart way, if we put everything on the table as they did during the Clinton years, we can address our deficit and our national debt and we can do it in a way that will be good for the country long term. Because every time we spend a dollar around here, we are making our children and our grandchildren pay for that. At some point down the road they will have to pay for it. We need to stop the reckless course we are on, everybody agrees. Whether it is the chairman or the ranking member of the Budget Committee, whether it is outside economists, or whether it is people such as those on Wall Street who analyze all of this, everybody agrees that we are on an unsustainable course. So what the Pryor amendment tries to do is address our deficit spending, not just the spending part but our whole picture to look at our annual deficits. One thing I wish to comment on is when I look at this graph, this is a graph of political courage. Because the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do--the easiest thing that any of us can do around here--is to cut taxes and increase spending. That is what has happened in recent years. That didn't happen during the Clinton years, but that has happened in recent years. The easiest thing to do is to go into deficit spending and push the problem down the road to somebody in the future. The time is now for us to stop doing that. The time is now for us to reverse these purple lines and get them going up, above zero. The truth is, we can't do it in 1 year. We probably can't do it in 5 years given the economic and fiscal condition we are in right now, but over a period of years, we can get this moving in the right direction. I promise my colleagues the markets will love it. I promise my colleagues the global economy will love it. They will love to see some American leadership. Everybody in the world looks at how we spend money around here and they shake their heads, because they know we are on an unsustainable course. This graph is a graph of political courage. Back during this time, when they did this Balanced Budget Act, back in 1993--and I have a lot of colleagues who were here and casting those hard votes back then-- those were acts of courage. It wasn't always popular because they made some hard choices, and that is what we have to do again. That is, hopefully, what the Pryor amendment will get us on track toward doing. Madam President, I know I just have a couple of minutes left. How long do I have?

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

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. I will try to wind down. The Pryor amendment freezes all discretionary spending caps at the level proposed by President Obama in the year 2011. So it does have a discretionary freeze. It freezes all discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40 percent of the difference between President Obama's budget proposal and last year's budget proposal. The reason we are doing that is because Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill have worked very hard on their amendment--in fact, I voted for their amendment a couple of times in its previous forms--but they used some different numbers. I thought in order to be fair we need to split the difference with their numbers, and these two freezes we are talking about will reduce discretionary spending by at least $77 billion over 15 years. That is major. That is a big chunk out of discretionary spending. Where we make up the difference is then we ask the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find at least--at least--an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions over the next 3 years to close the gap between projected revenues and entitlement spending. So we pretty much give this to the commission and say: Look, commission, you are set up. The President has put you together. We have six or eight Members from the Senate on that commission, other Members from the House. You all sit down and you all work through this. You have a year to do it. You need to work through this and find the other $77 billion worth of savings. In comparing the two amendments, the Pryor amendment actually saves a little bit more money over the next 3 years than the Sessions amendment, but one of the reasons is because we are looking at deficit reduction, not just spending. I think their amendment--again, which I have supported in the past--focuses on spending, but ours is more about deficit reduction and trying to take a full picture into account.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I move to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3548.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I know this Nation is in a fiscal crisis. Anybody who is paying attention to the details understands that. We have to get serious about deficit reduction. I believe that in order to do so, we have to look at the full picture. We can't just look at discretionary spending. I thank the President for saying he wants to freeze discretionary spending. It is going to be an unpopular decision, but we need to start taking steps like that. I also thank Senators Sessions and McCaskill because they have offered an amendment that is going to be voted on in a few minutes that freezes discretionary spending and puts a cap on it. It is for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. I voted for that on a couple occasions and still support the concept. But in order for us to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order, we have to put everything on the table. That is the bottom line. When we do the fiscally responsible thing, it is going to be hard. It is going to be difficult politically. It will take determination and political will. But we have to put everything on the table. The multiyear discretionary spending caps were a key part of the 1990, 1993, and 1997 deficit-reduction packages. However, one of the differences in those packages and what Senators Sessions and McCaskill are offering today is those deficit-reduction packages looked at all spending, mandatory and discretionary, as well as revenues. That is what my amendment, the Reid-Pryor amendment we will also vote on this afternoon, does. It puts everything--almost everything on the table. We have to get serious about fiscal discipline and restoring fiscal order in the United States. There is a story in yesterday's New York Times--I am sure it was widely reported--that Moody's is considering downgrading our bond rating from AAA down to something lower because of the enormous national debt we have. By establishing limits only on discretionary funding sources, we greatly reduce the likelihood of any bipartisan agreement we can make in this Chamber to fix our long-term deficits and long-term debt problem. I think for us to fix this and to get our fiscal house where it needs to be, we have to approach this in a bipartisan way. My concern is, if we just do discretionary spending, we will never get to a bipartisan agreement. The other thing about this: If the Reid-Pryor amendment were adopted today, I think the markets would like it. I think Wall Street and the global markets and all these folks such as Moody's and all these other people who are watching would see this as a very positive signal and it would help the U.S. economy in many ways beyond just the pure numbers in the budget. I trust the members of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I trust they will provide very viable options and solutions. I look forward to their hearings and all of their suggestions as they go through this year and try to address some of the fiscal challenges we have. The Senate has six Members on this commission: Senators Baucus, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and Gregg. All of these people bring great experience. They all bring to the commission great depth of knowledge on these issues. I am afraid if we do the cap on discretionary spending, as we talked about before, it might actually serve to undermine the commission's very challenging work. I have a chart here that lays out a few things. This actually comes from CQ Today, from Tuesday, February 2, so it is a little more than a month old. But it paints a couple of pictures that I think we need to emphasize today as we compare these two amendments. The first picture shows these pie charts. I do not know if the cameras can pick these up for the folks back home, but, as shown on these two pie charts these are the 2011 revenue estimates and the 2011 proposed outlays. One thing that I think is critically important is that when we look at the Sessions-McCaskill amendment--you can see this purple slice of the pie right here. You can see it is much less than half of the Federal budget. You can see that very easily. But in the fine print here--this is discretionary spending--that is nondefense and national defense right there. Of course, they are carving out for national defense. So my guess is, they are only talking about, I will guess, 20 percent of the Federal budget. I am not quite sure how much. So they are trying to fix all of our problem with just about 20 percent of the budget. What our proposal does is it actually includes almost everything in this pie, instead of saying 20 percent, probably 80 percent, 85 percent, 90 percent of the Federal budget will be included in trying to address the fiscal challenges we have. There is another thing I want to point out on this chart. It has been around a long time. I have seen it in many publications. On this chart, you can see our deficit spending, starting with the Jimmy Carter administration, going through the Reagan years, the George Bush years, the Clinton years, the George W. Bush years, and the Obama years. You will see that, of course, the Obama years are mostly projections. But what you see in these purple lines, all down here--under zero-- those are our deficits. Then they actually go up during the Clinton years above zero. We go into surplus spending for the first time in a long time, paying off national debt, trying to be fiscally responsible, making tough choices. Not everybody was happy about that. We were trying to do that. Then you see what happened after 2000, where our numbers plummeted. This yellow line--that maybe is hard to pick up on television--is the percentage of GDP. But, nonetheless, you see on this chart a sharp dropoff, and then you see this other sharp dropoff. So we have to understand, when this President came into office, President Obama, he did inherit a lot of problems, a lot of fiscal problems. But it is also because of the recession, because of the near global economic collapse, because of two wars and just because of some of these fiscal policies of the previous administration and because of the stimulus and because of some of his priorities. But you see the numbers going way down. To President Obama's credit, he is moving the purple lines back up, and that is great. But it is not enough. It is not enough. We need to move these lines on up here, and we need to get above zero. We have to get back to surpluses in this government so we can pay off the national debt, and do this before our children and our grandchildren are stuck with us living beyond our means. I think that is the bottom line. I think the Reid-Pryor amendment is the amendment that does that. We can talk about how we have an annual deficit this year of--I think it is $1.2 trillion. I have forgotten the number. We can talk about the national debt of--I think it is $13 trillion, and growing every single year. We have to get that turned around. We are on an unsustainable course. We have heard the chairman of the Budget Committee. We have heard the ranking member of the Budget Committee. We have heard people who care about this issue say time and again: We are on an unsustainable course. I would ask my colleagues to look at the Reid-Pryor amendment. In some ways, it is structured like what Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill have offered. Again, I voted for previous versions of that. They changed it a little bit this time. But I think the greatest liability for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is it does not take in the whole picture. Like the pie chart, it takes in a little bit of this pie chart but not the whole thing. If we are going to get serious--get serious--about fixing our fiscal equation, we have to put everything on the table. That is discretionary spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues. We have to put it all on the table, and we have to work through this together, hopefully in a very bipartisan way. I do not think we can fix this overnight. Even if our amendment were to pass this evening, it does not mean we are out of the woods yet. What it does is set the table for the deficit commission and others in future Congresses to come in and do the things we need to do and get us back where we need to be. The last point I want to make about this chart right here is, if you look at this purple line, this chart is basically a graph of political courage. That is what this is. Because the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do--the easiest thing for a politician to do--is to cut taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what you see on this chart. You see tax cuts coming in at various times, and you see spending going up at various times. These purple numbers get way out of balance when Congress and the White House take the easy way out, and that is exactly what you see on this chart. That is why we are in this situation today. It is not one President's fault. I do not want to blame it all on this President or on the previous President. This has been going on for a long time. It is not one Congress's fault. It has been going on for a long time. But we have to have the political will to change the way we do things around here. I hope tonight will be a very important step in that process. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at the Reid-Pryor amendment that contains all three fixes--and that is discretionary spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues--and try to get this passed tonight and get us moving in the right direction. I say to the chairman, I think we are waiting on Senator Inouye. So until he gets here, all I wish to say is, what the Pryor amendment does is to freeze all discretionary spending caps at the levels proposed by President Obama for fiscal year 2011. It freezes all discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40 percent of the difference between President Obama's budget proposal and last year's budget resolution. The reason we do that is because Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill used last year's budget numbers, and it may be fair under the circumstances this year. We are splitting the difference there. The third thing is that these two freezes will reduce discretionary spending by at least $77 billion over 3 years-- reduce discretionary spending by $77 billion over 3 years--a pretty substantial cut. When we talk about discretionary spending, we are talking about mostly the popular programs the government has. It may be things such as auto safety. It may be things such as child product safety. It may be things such as the Federal Trade Commission and some of the oversight they have to keep consumers safe. It could be the EPA. There are a lot of things--clean drinking water, clean air. That is what we are talking about when we talk about discretionary spending. So we are doing cuts there. Those are going to hurt. Again, people are not going to be happy about that. It also requires the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find at least an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions over the 3 years to close the gap between the projected revenues and entitlement spending. It basically says they have to find some spending cuts as they do their work. It also requires Congress to enact the debt commission's recommendations by January 2, 2011, for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 discretionary spending caps to go into effect. It has a sense of the Senate that the total amount of deficit reduction by the debt commission shall be at least equal to the reductions in discretionary spending. One of the differences between the Reid-Pryor amendment and the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is theirs is just about spending. And listen, spending is important, and that is half of the equation. We are spending too much money, and I recognize that, a lot of other people recognize that. I know a lot of people in Arkansas recognize that. But that is only half the equation. The other half is how much we are taking in, and can we do better and smarter all around the board and put everything on the table to try to fix this. The real problem we face, in my view, is not spending alone but it is the spending that is leading to these enormous deficits every year and this enormous national debt. So I think our approach is more comprehensive. I think it is fairer. I hope many of my colleagues, once they see the language of the legislation, will consider voting for it. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Judge Mary Ann Gunn for her personal commitment and innovative approach to public service in northwest Arkansas. Judge Gunn, who serves on the Washington County Circuit Court, received the 2009 FBI Director's Community Leadership Award. The award, presented on behalf of the Director of the FBI, was established in 1990 to recognize individuals and organizations for their efforts in combating terrorism, drugs, and violence in America. In addition to her duties as a circuit judge, Judge Gunn voluntarily serves as a judge for the Washington and Madison County Drug Court, in Arkansas. Since 2000, the drug court has accepted first-time, nonviolent drug offenders into a nine month program of intensive counseling and close supervision. When offenders successfully complete the program, their criminal records are cleared of the drug offense. Judge Gunn's courtroom is one of the most successful in the nation. Her drug court is regularly televised in Washington and Madison Counties, and is an excellent example of how the community, the courts, and law enforcement work together to reduce crime. In addition, she has held drug court sessions in school gymnasiums to show students just where drug use can lead. According to the FBI, Judge Gunn manages ``one of the most effective public services available in Northwest Arkansas.'' We congratulate Judge Mary Ann Gunn on her personal accomplishment, and we thank her for her commitment to reducing crime and protecting citizens of Arkansas.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor today to talk about SGT Vincent L.C. Owens from Fort Smith, AR. His life of service to our Nation is a shining example of a true American patriot. Sergeant Owens lost his life while serving in eastern Afghanistan after his transport vehicle came under fire by enemy forces. He was a part of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regimen, 101st Airborne Division in Fort Campbell, KY. Previously, Sergeant Owens spent 14 months in Iraq serving with the A Battery, 1st Battalion, 56th Air Defense Artillery from Fort Bliss, TX. Sergeant Owens served both tours with honor and distinction, earning numerous medals and awards, including two Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, a Valorous Unit Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Combat Action Badge. An ardent athlete, talented student, and motorcycle aficionado, Sergeant Owens lived his life of only 21 years with passion and dedication. Those who knew him describe him as a kind and easygoing man who always had high standards for himself. He was the oldest of five children. He had been married to his wife Kaitlyn for just 6 weeks. Despite being a newlywed, Sergeant Owens did not hesitate to answer the call of duty. Sergeant Owens' family and friends said he joined the Army out of a sense of patriotism and took pride in serving his Nation. He devoted his life to defending America and gave the ultimate sacrifice for the country he so deeply loved. After this tremendous loss, Fort Smith, AK, is in the process of waving off 200 airmen from the Air National Guard's 188th Fighter Wing as they head to Afghanistan, joining about 75 members of the 188th already serving there. This will be the unit's first deployment with the A-10 Thunderbolt II--also known as ``The Warthog''--since the 188th received the aircraft in April of 2007. Also, many of these guardsmen are part of the agribusiness development team. This unit will teach Afghans better farming, crop storage, and marketing practices in an effort to draw them away from poppy production and build a strong economy. These Arkansans are picking up Sergeant Owens' mantle in the fight to create a more secure and stable Afghanistan and together their efforts will endure. Today, I join all Arkansans in lifting up Sergeant Owens' wife Kaitlyn, his parents Sheila and Keith and his siblings and friends and extended family and community of Fort Smith during this very difficult time. Sergeant Owens may be gone, but his courage, valor, and patriotism will never be forgotten. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, today I pay tribute to the professional career and community achievements of Dr. Sandra Diane ``Sandi'' Sanders of Fort Smith, AR. Dr. Sandi Sanders, who did her master's and doctoral work at the University of Arkansas, has been an educator and involved in the Fort Smith community all of her life. She played a major role in the development of the former Westark Community College which today is the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, UAFS. She served in many different roles including provost, chief academic officer, senior vice chancellor and chief of staff, and most recently interim chancellor. Her leadership has guided UAFS to be one of the premiere community colleges in Arkansas and across the Nation. She has served and continues to serve in the community in many different roles such as former director of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, board of directors at Arvest Bank of Fort Smith, United Way Women's Leadership Giving Steering Committee, former campaign chairman for the 2005 United Way of Fort Smith, and many other activities. She is currently serving as project director for the U.S. Marshall Museum being built in Fort Smith. Her dedication to her community is shown through the numerous hours devoted to making her society a better place for her neighbors and for future residents. Dr. Sanders has brought great leadership and outstanding integrity to the Arkansas community. Her leadership has been and will continue to be critical in an ever-changing environment. The work of educating young people should not be taken lightly and I am proud to have Dr. Sanders teaching and advising students in our great State. Madam President, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the great contributions Dr. Sandi Sanders has made to Arkansas and the United States of America.