Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. OK. Mr. President, let me speak just for another couple minutes. I see a couple colleagues coming in the Chamber to talk. There has been a little bit of discussion about the House bill. Again, I want to thank our House colleagues for working hard down the hall here in getting a bipartisan bill. We have a bipartisan bill. But I think there are three fundamental differences between their bill and our bill. One, our bill has more transparency. I think that is good. I think that is something we, the Senate, should insist on. Second, our bill has more enforcement. We are able to get these products off shelves quicker and able to make sure they stay off shelves more so than the House bill. Third, our bill is more comprehensive reform. I have gone through a long list of items on how our bill has a lot of comprehensive reform in it. I think our bill should stand. I understand there are some people who might be interested in looking at the House bill and some of those provisions, but I think when you lay them down side by side you will see the Senate bill is stronger because it is more transparent, there is more enforcement, and it is more comprehensive.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of the quorum and ask that it be equally divided.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, we are going to vote in a couple of minutes on the motion to proceed to the CPSC--the Consumer Product Safety Act--and I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this motion and to move to this legislation so that we can consider it over the next couple of days in the Senate. I think the American public saw the record number of product recalls last year, especially in the toy sector but in all sectors of our economy. The people back home understand how important it is for the Senate to act on this and act in a way that is responsible and balanced and act in a way that is very meaningful. Again, our legislation as compared to the House bill is more transparent, there is more enforcement, and it is more comprehensive reform. I thank my House colleagues for doing what they have done and also thank my Senate colleagues, especially Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Collins. We have several on our side who have all come together to make this a bipartisan bill, and I appreciate the Senate's consideration. Cloture Motion

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. PRYOR. I have no objection to that.

Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, would the time run on the Republican side?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, again, I want to give a special thanks to Senator Stevens because he really has helped make this bill bipartisan and make it possible that we could actually pass this bill, hopefully, this week. So, I say to Senator Stevens, thank you for all that you have done to make this legislation better. Let me get back, if I may, to the bill itself. What I am trying to do, a lot of it is for the staff, or folks who are watching in their offices, and people around the country so they can understand what we are trying to accomplish. I want to run through the provisions of this bill. It is rather lengthy, but I will try to give an abbreviated, highlighted reel of what is in this bill. A few moments ago we talked about third party verification for toys. This toy, the Thomas and Friends Railway Toys, in some ways became almost a poster child for the problem. It had lead. These are toys designed specifically for young children, little toddlers, and little kids. You know how children do. They put things in their mouths or scratch on them or crawl all over them. No telling where they end up. The fact that you see lead in so many toys today is a great concern. We are trying to fix that. I mentioned one of the major innovations of this legislation is the third party certification. The other thing we want to do is put tracking label information on the toys. We have all been there. As parents we have had dolls or whatever the case may be. We like the doll; the doll is passed down from one child to another, maybe from a grandparent, a neighbor, who knows what it may be. But there is really no identifying information on that doll. So this bill makes sure that as practical as it can be, we are going to put that identifying information on it. I mentioned the Star Wars lightsabers a few moments ago. You can go on the Internet right now or to a toy store, and there are probably 10 or 20 different varieties of those lightsabers. So if they did a recall, it is important that there is something on there, some batch number or some ID number that parents and grandparents can know and, in fact, daycare can know when those toys should be taken away from their children. Another major improvement is the corrective action plans. Some people might call these voluntary recalls. Sometimes they do end up in voluntary recalls--not always. But the importance of the corrective action plan is that as it stands today, basically under current law--I believe it is fair to say--it is up to the manufacturer to come up with a plan. Under this bill, if this bill were to pass and become law, that shifts, and it means the Consumer Product Safety Commission lays out the parameters of that action plan. That is a very important shift in responsibility. Believe it or not, with a lot of these products that come onto our shores today, we have no idea who makes them. Right now it is not clear whether the CPSC even has the authority to ask the question about who actually makes the product, in many cases a toy. This bill fixes that. We also go through a long list of prohibitive acts. Some of those are just clarifications. Sometimes we make it clear in the law that it is unlawful to sell or distribute a product that has been recalled. Right now there is no law on the books that says it is unlawful to do that. It clarifies that. We go through a long list of things that you can't do. For example, you can't take a recall product and dump it on Third World markets. You can't take a recall product and send it over to Dollar Stores. You can't just willy-nilly go out and sell it on the Internet. We have a list of prohibited acts. These are commonsense acts. These are acts that will save lives if this law is implemented. We also enhance the penalties over what they are today. Again, the penalty section is a little complicated. Under current law, our fix therefore is a little bit complicated. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it today. But the committee bill actually had a $100 million civil penalty. We have chopped that down now with a bipartisan compromise to $10 million, plus an additional $10 million if there are aggravated circumstances. We doubt that will be triggered very often, but we think it is important for the CPSC to have that added ability to enhance that penalty, to go after the really egregious behavior, maybe repeat offenders, maybe people who are just absolutely thumbing their nose at U.S. law. Sharing information with Federal, State, local, and foreign governments is very important. Again, we believe the information sharing is good. We have talked about stove piping when it comes to intelligence, when it comes to homeland security, when it comes to DOD. We have talked about the stove piping and how unhelpful that can be. We feel the same way about this type of information. We need to share this information and make it available to State governments, local governments, foreign governments, et cetera. We also have a financial responsibility provision in this law. Again, this is a big improvement over current law. What we do with financial responsibility is under certain circumstances a company may have to have an escrow where they put certain dollars in or they have proof of insurance or they provide some sort of security. Again, I don't think the CPSC will require that all the time, but we give them that authority because right now they don't have it. We also are asking the GAO to do a study and get back to Congress about injuries to minority children. There is anecdotal evidence that these defective and unsafe products disproportionately harm minority children. We don't have the facts to know that for sure, but there is some anecdotal evidence to that effect. We want to make sure GAO takes a good look at that and lets us know. There are a lot of other miscellaneous provisions in here. I will not spend too much time on these, but there is a provision about child resistant portable gasoline containers. We have seen this problem all over the country for a long time. There is not a national standard. Most people are surprised to know that. We want to have one standard that is a good standard, and this bill takes care of that. We want a toy safety standard. There is not even a toy safety standard on the books. There is one in the private sector that industry has agreed to. We want to codify it. We want to make sure we have a strong toy safety standard. All-terrain vehicles, Senator Stevens mentioned something he has been working on a long time, and so have I, as part of the Commerce Committee. There is a garage door standard. Right now almost all garage doors--it is not required in most States--have two mechanisms for safety. One is like a laser beam mechanism, and the other is a motor; that if it feels too much pressure, it will stop or go back up. That is not required. We want to make sure on the Federal level all the new garage doors have those two safety mechanisms because we believe that will save lives. I can go through a lot of other issues with regard to this legislation. Let me cover three of the issues that have been somewhat controversial. I want everybody to hear what I am saying about these controversial issues because we have found common ground. We have found the commonsense solution to some issues that had been very controversial and very negatively received as this bill came out of committee, but we have made major changes to these three areas. First is the database. The goal is to have more transparency in the system. I will talk about this in the upcoming days. But we are trying to fix a real-life problem that has caused a lot of injuries. That is, there are many examples of when a product is dangerous, and that product is being sold in stores, people are buying it, people are using it, but the CPSC is in negotiations or discussions with the company, that product has been identified as dangerous, but the public doesn't know about it. We are trying to provide the transparency. The public has a right to know. So we have been working on this for a year. We have come up with this database idea. We have put a lot of parameters around it. If it is not true information or not accurate, it can be pulled off, and the companies are able to list an explanation. We don't identify the people, so you would not be able to use this, for example, where trial lawyers could go out and troll around and find new plaintiffs. We have tried to build in safeguards around this to take the objections away. But at the end of the day, if someone has a better idea on how to increase this transparency, we would love to hear about it. So far the best thing we have been able to come up with is this database. The second controversial provision--and it was very controversial when it came out of committee--is this State attorneys general provision. I am a former State attorney general, so the AG provision is not going to cause me as much heartburn because I have lived through that for 4 years. I know how the State AGs work, and I know how diligent and careful they are. They have to manage their resources as well. But we have done two major things to the provision that came out of the committee. First, we make sure--and we write it into the statute. We make sure the State attorneys general have to follow what the CPSC does. They can't get out in front of the CPSC. We are not going to have 51 different standards out there. They follow what the CPSC does. We made that very clear in the statute. The second thing is, we limited the State AGs to injunctive relief only. So the situation that would be the most common would be that the CPSC does a recall, 6 months later in a State, whatever State it may be, they notice these recall products start to end up in the Dollar Store. Well, the CPSC has moved on. They are working on other things now. They don't have the resources or the time to deal with that. But the State might. If it is important enough for a State AG, he can get an injunction and make sure those products come off the shelf. These are products already identified as dangerous. We are not letting the States get out in front of the CPSC on this issue. They are following the CPSC. It is limited only to injunctive relief. We believe we have found the balance there. The last thing I want to talk about in terms of the controversial parts of this legislation that have changed substantially since we have come out of committee is the whistleblower provision. The goal is to make sure people are not punished for doing the right thing. If an employee finds something his company is doing and he actually tells the CPSC about it and he later gets fired, we want to make sure he has some whistleblower protections such as in other areas of Federal law. We took this provision from a transportation act, the STAA, that the Senate passed not too long ago. So it is based on existing law. We have some statistics on how it should really work. So I want to encourage my colleagues to look at that. Mr. President, how am I doing on time?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this is a historic day for the Senate because we have the opportunity, starting today, to consider the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization Act. What I would like to do, if I may, is, when Senator Stevens of Alaska comes--apparently he has an urgent, pressing need, and he cannot stay for what would have normally been his allotted time. I would like to allow him to use his time--I think it is about 10 minutes or so--to speak, and we will cross that bridge when he walks in. For most Americans, when they hear the term ``CPSC,'' they think of some sort of alphabet-soup Federal agency. They do not really understand what it does, why it exists, or why it is important. In fact, I had that same reaction back when I was the attorney general of my State. I was out playing in my front yard with my kids, and my kids had some toys, and they were called Star Wars Lightsabers. They are like flashlights, but they look like a lightsaber. They were out there playing around, and one of my neighbors came up and said: Wait a minute, I think those have been recalled. Well, I did not know whether they had been recalled. She did not know for sure. I asked her, and she said: Well, I think I saw something on television about that, but I am not sure. Well, one thing led to another. It was very hard for me to figure out whether my children's toys had been recalled. So through a process at the State Attorney General's Office in Arkansas, we established a Web site called childproductsafety.com, which had the goal of making it easier for parents like me and grandparents to go to one Web site and find all the recalled children's products that are out there. All we really did was link to the CPSC Web site. But that gave me my first experience with working with the CPSC, and it was through that process that I began to understand how important they are and why we need a very strong and capable Consumer Product Safety Commission. To reinforce this, last year I became the chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs as part of the Commerce Committee. When I looked at all of the various consumer issues--and there are many we can focus on--I decided that the subcommittee's top priority should be to reauthorize the CPSC. The reason I did that is because in 2006 we had seen a record number of recalls. We began working on this, and we realized that because of the changes in the marketplace, because the U.S. marketplace had changed a lot because of imports--and a lot of other changes going on in the marketplace--we realized the Consumer Product Safety Commission had not kept up with the times. So we made a concerted effort to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission reauthorized. We started that about a year ago, had a few hearings, and then, over the summer of last year, we began to see the toy recalls. I may have it wrong, but I think it was the Chicago Tribune which had the first story. But after that, a series of national news stories came out-- television, radio, newspaper, and other media like the Internet and news magazines--to talk about the record number of toy recalls from last year. In fact, if you look at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, every year they think there are about 28,200 deaths and about 33.6 million injuries from the products the CPSC overseas. They oversee 15,000 types of products. So when you see big numbers such as this, you have to understand that these numbers cover almost every product in the American marketplace, with a few exceptions. There are a few things in the automotive world and a few other things that it does not cover, but by and large, consumer products are covered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We saw this again last year. We saw a record number of recalls. We thought 2006 was a bad year, but 2007 was even worse. What we are seeing now is we are seeing an escalating effect. We are seeing more and more products being recalled all the time. So let me give a very quick background, again, for a lot of the staffers watching in their offices and for the Senators who have not yet made up their mind on how they are going to approach this Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation and maybe some amendments. Let me give a few minutes of background to talk about why we are here today and what role the CPSC plays and why it is so important to Americans all over this great country. First, let me say that the CPSC was established in the 1970s. They have done a good job. In fact, I wish to praise the employees at CPSC, because what you have seen in the last few years is a dwindling budget. It has either been flatlined or they have had cuts. You have seen the staff there shrink over time. Let me give you the CPSC overview that they have on their Web site. It says: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the Nation more than $800 billion annually. Let me read that again for those folks who are watching in their offices here. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the Nation more than $800 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or could injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products, such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals. . . . Et cetera, et cetera. The CPSC is a very important agency, and it is one that, unfortunately, Congress and the White House over the last several years have neglected. It is very important that we reauthorize the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It is long overdue and has not been done since 1990 in a major way. There was a little reauthorization in 1992, but this is 18 years in the making. And we have seen a lot of changes in the American marketplace in the last 18 years. Another thing I would like to mention is the personnel at the CPSC. When the CPSC was in its early days in 1977, they had 900 employees, full-time employees, at the CPSC. Today, they have 420. So this agency is less than half the size it used to be. That is a problem. Again, especially considering the changes in the marketplace, that is a serious problem. But the approach taken in our legislation, S. 2663, is not just to throw money or to throw people at a problem but actually to restructure the agency and retool the agency so it can be smarter and more effective from top to bottom. One of the problems, one of the challenges we have with the CPSC right now is the matter of a quorum. Back in the old days, back in the 1970s when the CPSC was set up, there were five Commissioners. Somewhere along the line, that got changed to three Commissioners. Today, there are only two Commissioners at the CPSC--only two Commissioners--and they have a statute that says that after a certain time, they cannot function with two Commissioners. So last year, we had to get a provision added to the law to allow them to function with just two Commissioners. This bill contains that same provision, but also I think this bill makes a very important change; that is, it returns the CPSC to the five-member Commission it used to be. Why is that important? Think about the number of products this Commission oversees. In some ways, I think it is a little bit like the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission or some of these other Commissions that have a lot of jurisdiction. What it is, when you have five members, they are able to generally specialize in various areas. When you talk to Commissioners on those other Commissions, they think that is very important. And when I have talked to former CPSC Commissioners, they think it is doing a great disservice to the country to only have three Commissioners. When you only have three, everyone has to be a generalist and you do not have enough manpower to specialize in everything. One of the things this bill does is fix that problem. It fixes the immediate quorum problem until the full five Commissioners of the CPSC can be reappointed, but it also fixes the long-term problem of having three Commissioners versus five Commissioners. The next thing I wanted to mention is there is, in our bill, in section 10, a very important provision that is a major innovation and a major improvement over existing law, and that is third-party certification for children's products. In other words, if this law passes, we are going to set up the situation where children's products will have to be certified by a third party. This is something which has worked in other contexts--that is, generally speaking, most industries. I am not saying every single company, but most like this innovation. The goal here is to keep these dangerous products off our shores if they are made overseas and certainly keep them off our shelves by preventing any need for recall in the first place. If you have third- party certification, you would hope you would see fewer and fewer recalls over time. I see my colleague from Alaska has walked in, and as I understand it, he has some constraints on his schedule today. So I will be glad to sit down and hear from him.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what is our status right now on the floor? Are we still in morning business?

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent to yield back that time.

Mr. PRYOR. Do we have any time remaining in morning business?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Zolkeply, an intern for the Senate Commerce Committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2663.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life and accomplishments of a great Arkansan, Mrs. Vada Webb Sheid. Mrs. Sheid was a civil servant; she was an entrepreneur; she was an inspiration. After a long battle with Alzheimer's, Vada Sheid passed away on February 11, 2008, at the age of 91. She will be sorely missed. Born and raised in rural Arkansas near Calico Rock in the north central part of the State, she became known as one of the Twin Lakes area's biggest movers and shakers. She came from a rare breed of politicians, one marked with sincere intentions and a sense of duty. Starting as the Izard County Welfare Director at the young age of 19, her public service career stretched across five decades. Her love of public service, the area, and the people of her area was apparent in her work. She understood the needs of her constituents and committed her time and efforts to addressing them. From the time she was first elected in 1966, she set out to replace the ferry system on Norfork Lake by building bridges across it. After nearly 20 years of unwavering pursuit, the Norfork Lake bridges were constructed, an act credited as her crowning achievement. Education was another cornerstone of her tenure. As a supporter of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Mrs. Sheid donated her papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections in 1989 so that they may be shared and studied for generations to come. North Central Arkansas did not have much to offer as a means of college education prior to the work of Vada. During her tenure, she introduced a measure that established the North Arkansas Community College in Harrison and was a key factor to the creation of the Arkansas State University at Mountain Home. Vada and my father, David Pryor, were dear friends and had a close relationship during their many years of public service in Arkansas. I had the privilege of serving with her in the Arkansas House of Representatives. She had this calming influence about her that led her to become a mentor to many of us. Given her reputation, she was trusted as a sounding board across the State on key issues and new ideas. There is not really a story I could tell about Vada Sheid to encompass the person she was. Her story was filled with a lifetime of integrity and a steadfast passion for public service. Her accomplishments and passion for public service continue to be an inspiration to me. I recognize the value and impact of her work in Arkansas, and during my time in the Senate, I have worked to secure Federal funding for the Vada Sheid Community Center on the Arkansas State University at Mountain Home campus. With the groundbreaking set for April 11, I am committed, now more than ever, to working with stakeholders to complete this project as a tribute to Mrs. Sheid. Arkansas has a rich heritage of powerful, groundbreaking women. Vada Sheid's accomplishments place her in the ranks of historic greats like Hattie Caraway, Judge Elsijane Trimble Roy, my dear colleague, Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln, and my grandmother, Susie Newton Pryor. This woman rose above the times and crossed milestones in so many of her endeavors. She was the first woman to be elected in her own right to the Arkansas Senate, and the first woman to serve in both Chambers of the Arkansas General Assembly. My heart goes out to her family, friends, and Arkansans alike as we mourn this loss. Vada left Arkansas and the world a better place than when she found it and her legacy will continue to live on for generations to come.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish to honor National Peace Corps Week and the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps. I add my voice to celebrate the hard working men and women who volunteer for Peace Corps service. As an Arkansan and a believer in Senator J. William Fulbright's legacy, I consider this program to be one of the most important mechanisms we have to encourage international cooperation, peace, and security. I believe we are morally obliged to help those in need around the world and work to reduce poverty in order to fight global epidemics, to enhance education, and to reduce hunger. I am continually heartened by the good works of Arkansans in the State, Nation, and abroad. Our State has a storied history of service, and I am pleased that there are 36 Arkansans currently serving as Peace Corps volunteers in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America. I am proud to say that Arkansas is also home to one of the pioneering families of the Peace Corps, Carolyn and the late Bob Moffett. Inspired by President Kennedy's challenge to the American people, Bob entered into service as a volunteer in the summer of 1962. Carolyn was with Bob every step of the way and devoted her life to taking care of her family and the other volunteers; hosting holidays, weddings, and even funerals. But Bob and Carolyn are just one story in the 47 years of Peace Corps history. Working in the fields of education, health and HIV/AIDS, the environment, youth, agriculture, information technology, and business development, 190,000 brave men and women, serving in 139 countries, have dedicated over 2 years of their lives to make significant achievements, enriching the lives of others and serving their country. In these uncertain times, Peace Corps volunteers remain committed to the goals of international peace, friendship, and understanding by sharing their unparalleled experience to those back home. I pray that the good work of these and other Peace Corps volunteers will raise awareness and that others will be called to follow their good example. For the record, I would like to submit the names of the 36 Arkansans currently serving in the Peace Corps. They are John Armstrong, Amanda Barker, Anthony Barnum, Melanie Berman, Susan Boswell Pierce, Robert Bryant, Allyson Carr, Adam Carson, Garrard Conley, Erin Gibbs, Jared Gillis, Laurel Gladish, Allison Green, Rebecca Hedges, Cameron Highsmith, Brian Hilburn, Joseph Hill, James Hollins, Jenny Hurst, Julia Jones, Adelia Kittrell, Nicholas Klinger, Theodis Lever, Tara Loftis, Stanley Luker, Jennifer Lusk, Daniel McGinley, Joshua Mosley, Danielle Rinke, Mary Rinnert, Rebecca Robinson, Deborah Romes, Christin Spradley, Kristen Straw, Jackson Taylor, Nikolette Williams. I thank them all for their devoted service to their country and steadfast dedication to improving the lives of the disadvantaged.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish honor Ken Harper, a fellow Arkansan who has embraced the spirit of patriotism. Not only has he served our country in the military, but he has created inspirational poetry and a special commemorative gift to veterans. Ken Harper has a unique talent for writing poetry of a ``military significance'' and ``significance of character'' that gives inspiration to those who read it. Ken Harper proudly served in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army. He served a tour of duty with the U.S. Navy beginning in 1979. In 1985, he chose to continue his military career by serving in the U.S. Army. After his military service was completed, Ken still had the desire to serve. Inspired by the fallen sailors and marines of Pearl Harbor, Ken requested a few American flags to be flown from military memorials and ships on behalf of some retired veterans he knew. The success of this motivated him to have more flags flown in dedication of other veterans. Later, he would have two special flags he claims as his own raised on several naval ships and even on board a NASA space ship. Because Ken Harper has selflessly honored so many, today we honor him for his efforts, talents, and service to our country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that today I commend a great American and Arkansan on his last day of duty in the Marine Corps. Cpl Justin B. ``Jeb'' Neel grew up in Little Rock and attended Little Rock Catholic High where he was a member of their prestigious and well-known Marine Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. He went on to graduate from the University of Arkansas, my alma mater, with his bachelor's of art in criminal justice. He was also a member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, of which I am a member. Upon his graduation in 2003, Jeb enlisted in the Marine Corps and answered the call to serve his country. After completing boot camp in San Diego, Jeb was assigned to the Marine Barracks in Washington, DC. While there, Jeb served as a member of the world famous U.S. Marine Body Bearer section. This small but vital group is composed of marines within one of the ceremonial drill companies at the Marine Barracks. As a marine in Bravo Company, Jeb was charged with the difficult duty of receiving marines who had been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually, Jeb was called to serve in the global war on terror, and in February 2007, he deployed to Al Anbar Province in western Iraq. While in Al Anbar, Jeb and his fellow marines performed missions that included month-long hikes up the Euphrates River searching for weapons caches and fallen marines. They also performed foot patrols in cities across Al Anbar including Fallujah and Hit. By all accounts Jeb and his fellow marines greatly contributed to the mission of increasing peace and stability for the Iraqi people. Jeb returned from Iraq at the end of 2007 to his strong and supportive family and finished the rest of his military service at Camp Lejeune. I am proud to have citizens like Jeb from the State of Arkansas who so valiantly and honorably serve this Nation. I had the pleasure of having breakfast with Jeb before he deployed to Iraq, and I was truly inspired and impressed by his commitment and duty to our country. It is with great thanks that I commend Corporal Neel for his service. Today, Jeb leaves the Marine Corps and moves on to do other great things with his life. I think we should all take this opportunity to recognize what our service men and women like Jeb Neel sacrifice for this great Nation. I thank him for his service.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to speak on an issue that is extremely important to families all across the country--consumer product safety. I have spent the past year working with several of my colleagues to reform and reinvigorate the agency charged with protecting consumers from unsafe products, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. These efforts have resulted in good progress. We have restored the Commission's ability to conduct business without a quorum, we have provided historic increases in CPSC's funding, and we have passed pool safety legislation to protect children from drain entrapment. Earlier this fall, I introduced legislation, S. 2045, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007, to ensure the CPSC has the authority and tools they need to protect families from dangerous imported products. We have all seen enough evidence in the press and on our retailers' shelves to know that reform is needed. Senators Inouye, Durbin, Klobuchar, Bill Nelson, Brown, Schumer, Menendez, Casey, and Harkin have all joined me in this historic effort, and their contributions to the bill have been enormous. The Senate Commerce Committee reported S. 2045 in October by voice vote. Since that time, we have been working in a bipartisan fashion to move our legislation out of the Senate and to provide these protections for the American public. As many of you are aware, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider their version of CPSC reform today. I applaud the House for getting involved in this very important issue and was pleased to see that many of the ideas we developed in S. 2045 were incorporated into the House bill. I believe this effort is a very important first step to reauthorize this agency and provide it with some of the tools necessary to work more diligently on behalf of the American consumer. This is a goal that I share with all cosponsors of my bill, many of my colleagues in the Senate, and my counterparts in the House. While the House bill is a good step, I believe S. 2045 contains many additional reforms critical to improving our consumer product safety laws. I also believe the Senate now stands poised to build upon the actions of the House and provide even greater assurances to the American public. Though I would have preferred to accomplish this task this year--and we have worked very hard to make this a reality--it seems the timing of the rest of the week simply makes this task nearly impossible. I would say to my colleagues in the Senate that we are very close to achieving bipartisan compromise to allow this bill to go forward early next year. I have expressed to the majority leader my desire to continue to move forward with S. 2045, and I hope to secure time for floor consideration at the earliest possible time when Congress returns in January. Consumer product safety is too important to the American people to not give them our very best effort, and I believe the Senate needs time to consider this legislation on the Senate floor. I would like to take a moment to highlight some areas of concern that I have with the House legislation where the Senate legislation provides greater protection, areas that I hope to improve upon when Congress returns next year. To begin, S. 2045 provides greater reauthorization levels for a longer length of time than H.R. 4040. While the House seeks to reauthorize the CPSC for three years, S. 2045 reauthorizes the CPSC for 7 years. S. 2045 provides over $526 million more in authorized funding than H.R. 4040. Our legislation takes a long term approach to reauthorize the agency, which I believe brings stability to the agency in addition to their enforcement efforts. The last time the CPSC was reauthorized was in 1990 for only a 2-year period. During the 17 years between the last authorization and now, the CPSC has withered on the vine, a victim of underfunding and understaffing. I believe the systemic problems that have surfaced over these 17 years demonstrate the need for looking forward to the future as we debate reauthorization. The Senate bill also gives greater authority to State attorneys general to assist the CPSC in their consumer product enforcement efforts. While H.R. 4040 only provides State attorneys general with a very limited role in protecting consumers, S. 2045 ensures that these officials can act as real cops on the beat, looking out for consumers and restoring confidence in the marketplace by enforcing the provisions of the entire Consumer Product Safety Act, not limited sections. S. 2045 also furthers the mission of the CPSC by placing more information about dangerous products in the hands of families when the dangers become known instead of allowing manufacturers to bog down the disclosure of information through lengthy court battles. S. 2045 will allow parents to make educated and cautious decisions about the products they are placing in their homes. While the House bill only seeks to clarify the existing statute in this respect, the Senate bill can actually place real and timely information in the hands of consumers. I believe such a result can only enhance the security and well-being of our fellow Americans. One very important difference between the House and Senate version of this legislation is the standards set for testing children's toys. H.R. 4040 asks the CPSC to decide if current voluntary standards are feasible for manufacturers' testing procedures and whether they should be adopted. It is very obvious to me, as well as millions of moms, dads, and grandparents around the country that testing requirements must be elevated. S. 2045 would make these voluntary standards mandatory for testing and safety. Furthermore, S. 2045 adds real teeth to the enforcement capabilities of the CPSC. Though I applaud the House for increasing civil penalties to which a violator may be subject to $10 million, I do not believe this level is sufficient to deter bad actors. Placing dangerous products in the hands of American consumers must not be the cost of doing business. S. 2045 increases the cap in civil penalties to $100 million and strengthens criminal penalties for those aggravated violators that seemingly show a disregard to the health and safety of consumers and the laws enacted by this body. H.R. 4040 does not remove the requirement that the CPSC notify violators of noncompliance prior to seeking criminal penalties. This may seem minor, but this provision of the Consumer Product Safety Act has hamstrung the CPSC's ability to pursue egregious violators to the point where only one such violator has been pursued. Even the President's Import Safety Working Group has recommended this change. Last, S. 2045 provides important protections for employees who stand up for public safety by blowing the whistle on unsafe products or practices. These whistleblower protections are extremely important to catching unsafe products before they enter the stream of commerce. Employees are often on the front lines of consumer product safety, and I believe they deserve protection from retribution if they report activities they believe to be in violation of the law. H.R. 4040 does not provide whistleblower protections. There are many other areas I could highlight where S. 2045 can provide more meaningful reform than H.R. 4040, but I believe these to be some of the most important. I would like my colleagues to know of my commitment for this body to consider and pass meaningful consumer product safety reform next year. I will continue to work tirelessly on this legislation over the holiday recess, and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation. I thank them for their hard work during this process and am encouraged with the progress we have made in just the past few days. Finally, I would like to thank the cosponsors of this legislation for their leadership and persistence on consumer product safety. This has certainly been a team effort, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to resolve this matter when we return.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 366, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.