Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 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.

Mr. PRYOR

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided evenly, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I move to table the DeMint amendment No. 43 and ask for the yeas and nays.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. That is agreeable.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I didn't intend to say anything about our friend, Ken Salazar today, but in listening to his remarks and knowing the contribution he has made around here in 4 short years, I couldn't resist. I am sure the Presiding Officer, if he wasn't presiding, would come down and do the same thing. I first met Senator Salazar before he was a Senator; in fact, as we were getting sworn in as attorneys general together, probably in December of 1998, if I remember correctly. We both had been elected to our offices of attorney general in November of 1998, and we went to a National Association of Attorneys General meeting. We immediately bonded. It was very clear and very evident to everyone there that he had the right stuff to be a great attorney general. It turned out he was a great attorney general for the State of Colorado. I encouraged him to come to the Senate when Senator Campbell announced his retirement, and I think it was probably the best thing I have done since I have been in the Senate was to try to get Ken Salazar to come here. You know, when I think back about our Founding Fathers and how they designed the Senate and how I think they envisioned the Senate should work, they had in mind a person such as Ken Salazar to be in this body. They probably couldn't even imagine that Colorado would become a State. I mean, they probably couldn't even fathom the way this country would grow and change over the decades and centuries. But I think when they set up the Senate, they wanted people with intelligence, work ethic, character, and people who could put their personal views aside for the greater good. That is what we have in Ken Salazar. He is all those things. He has been a Senator's Senator for the last 4 years he has been in Washington. I know his brother John is here. I know John is very proud of him, and I know the State of Colorado is very proud of the work he has done. And they should be because there is a lot to be proud about with Senator Ken Salazar. I know all 100 of us couldn't be here today. We have some committee hearings going on, and we also have the inauguration coming Tuesday, so people are kind of bracing themselves and preparing for all of that. But if all 100 were here, I think you would have 99 people stand up and basically say what some of us have already said; that he has been an extraordinary Senator, an extraordinary person, and he has had a great impact in his short time in the Senate. One last thing, on a personal note. One of the things I love about Ken Salazar as a person is his deep and very serious faith. I asked him to come in and chair the Senate Prayer Breakfast, which he took to new heights. He expanded the number of people who were coming to that. He was great. He chaired the National Prayer Breakfast for a year, and I think they probably set a record that year for attendance and in the quality of the speakers they had that year. So he has had not just a political and governmental influence but an even broader and deeper influence. Senator Salazar, we are going to miss you very much. We all love you, and we all know you are going to do great things at Interior. We know there are a lot of challenges America is facing right now, but we know you are part of the solution. God has called you to be where you are going right now. So thank you for your service, and we are going to dearly miss you in this body. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Arkansas is grieving for a young hero, a courageous soldier who was serving in Iraq as a member of the 224th Maintenance Company. This team keeps our troops safe and their equipment and vehicles running. It is a mission paramount to our soldiers' success. A member of the National Guard for almost 7 years, SPC James Clay of Mountain Home, AR, showed great commitment and patriotism throughout his assignment with the 2nd Battalion, 153rd Infantry Regiment, 39th Brigade Combat team. Of his service, MG William Wofford, adjutant general of the Arkansas National Guard recalls, ``He was called to serve, and he answered that call with valiant service. He was a true patriot and will not soon be forgotten.'' Specialist Clay's untimely death has brought me to the Senate floor today, but I want to take a minute to honor his life. He overcame major obstacles in his personal life, including the death of both his parents, yet he graduated from Cotter High School in 2002 where teachers describe him as outstanding, considerate, and spirited. Friends remember Specialist Clay as a role model who persevered with dignity and humanity. Everyone who knew this young hero recalled his great smile and his compassion for others. It is no surprise that he died fighting for the peace and security of others. My prayers go out to Specialist Clay's family and friends, particularly his high school sweetheart and wife, Mellissa Clay. During his second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln pledged, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphans.'' Mrs. Clay, we will never forget the sacrifice of your loved one, and we work to honor his memory, courage, and service to our great Nation. Corporal Adrian Robles

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I would like to recognize remarkable contributions of 91-year-old Frances Landers of El Dorado, AR. At a time when most people consider retirement, Frances dedicated the past 30 years of her life to making education accessible to the children of Haiti. Through her selfless years of service, Frances' work and formation of the Haiti Education Foundation have opened educational doors of opportunity for hundreds of children who otherwise might never have learned to read. Frances visited Haiti this past April to say her goodbyes, for this was most likely her last visit. She first came to Haiti in 1977 as a medical volunteer with her late husband Dr. Gardner Landers, an ophthalmologist, to help people with cataract problems. Dr. and Mrs. Landers began making two trips a year, providing surgery and eyeglasses to the Haitian people. During these visits, she met Father Jean-Wilfrid Albert, a chaplain of the mission hospital. Through Father Albert and her numerous mission trips, Frances discovered that many villages had no school and most citizens were illiterate. Impassioned to make a difference, Frances returned to Arkansas and began raising money. Through her dedication, perseverance and conviction, she soon launched one school, and over time, many others followed. Because of her establishment of the Haiti Education Foundation, there are now 40 primary schools and 10 secondary schools, which are currently educating more than 11,000 Haitian children. Through donations and scholarships, the foundation provides schooling, hot lunches, shoes, school uniforms, textbooks, Creole bibles, milk, and goats for families. These schools set the foundation for students to enroll in universities and pursue careers that allow them to break past poverty barriers. Ms. Landers continues to raise awareness and funding to ensure the foundation's success. She has lived in service to the people of Haiti and is an extraordinary example of what can be achieved when committed to a worthwhile endeavor. Today, I honor and thank Frances Landers for her continual interest in others and inspiring those around her to do the same.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great sorrow I rise today to remember a bright young man who was taken from us far too soon. Terrance Davis, 20 years old and from Osceola, AR, was a gifted student majoring in sociology, theater and performance studies, and African- American studies at Georgetown University. My staff and I were blessed to benefit from this young man's talents this past summer when he served as an intern in my office. I had the privilege of getting to know Terrance during this time and to see his passion for public service. Terrance was an enthusiastic leader who was not afraid to take on multiple responsibilities. After fulfilling his duties in the Senate he would attend rehearsals for the play he was directing at Georgetown University until late into the evenings. He also served as director of the Georgetown University Gospel Choir. His friends at school and people in my office referred to him as someone with a positive attitude who was always ready to work. Other friends referred to him as having strong passion for his Christian faith. Terrance had plans to serve our country by participating in the Teach for America program and wanted a future in helping students through higher education. He once said that becoming a college professor or dean was something he inspired to do. Tragically, on September 1, 2008, Terrance Davis was involved in a fatal accident in Harkerville, South Africa, where he was traveling on a holiday break from his academic study abroad program at the University of Cape Town. I join his family and friends in mourning the loss of this great young man. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the life of this exceptionally talented young man, Terrance Davis.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great sadness I rise to honor a great American, a great Arkansan and my friend. Bill Gwatney, a valiant public servant, was taken from us on August 13, 2008. Bill was my friend for many years. This included his days as an elected official in Arkansas where he served as a State senator for 10 years. He was committed to improving the State of Arkansas by taking the lead on legislative redistricting, reforming ethics rules, and encouraging economic development throughout the State. While serving in the State senate he fought against insurance companies to pass the Any Willing Provider legislation. This allowed patients more flexibility in choosing their doctors. He inspired other great leaders to lift the State and the country into a prosperous future. He worked tirelessly every day to make Arkansas a better place for his children and for children from the Delta to the Ozarks. He became chair of our State party in 2007 and was a leader in getting the party to where it is today. His work ethic and ability to bring people together were unmatched. His personality was contagious, likable, and he was an all around wonderful person. In the days following his death, he was praised on both sides of the aisle. Bill was taken from us too soon. I echo a comment by Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe who said: ``Arkansas has lost a great son, and I have lost a great friend.'' These words ring true to any Arkansan who had the privilege of knowing him. He believed strongly in integrity and good leadership within the State of Arkansas. His death put in perspective what he believed, that public service is about people, and with his passing Arkansas has lost one of its finest. Bill leaves behind a wife Rebecca and children, Christian and Chase, along with two step-children, Zachary and Emily. I ask my collogues to join with me in paying tribute to the life of a great family man, business leader, and public servant, Mr. Bill Gwatney.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. That is correct. The whistleblower provision should be interpreted broadly and consistent with ``best practices'' to achieve the law's purpose. For instance, ``employee'' is defined broadly to include individuals in any dimension of the employment concept: incumbent or former employees. It protects all individuals who have received compensation to engage in activities for which the corporation is responsible. The law's purpose may not be circumvented by hair- splitting interpretations that plug safe channels for witnesses to disclose relevant evidence of safety hazards.

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. Consistent with long-established Supreme Court case law see e.g., English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 270, 1990--these rights do not cancel or replace preexisting remedies, whether under other overlapping congressional statutes, State laws, State tort claims or collective bargaining agreements.

Mr. PRYOR. There should be no confusion that the rights for protected activity created by this statute are the law of the land. They supersede and cannot be canceled or overridden by any conflicting restrictions in company manuals, employment contracts, or exit or nondisclosure agreements.

Mr. PRYOR. My colleague is correct. The legislation does not preempt or otherwise affect State or political subdivision requirements applicable to a toy or other children's product that is designed to deal with the same risk of injury as the consumer product safety standard, if such State or political subdivision has filed such requirement with the Commission within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act.