Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. You are a most helpful Chair, and I thank you so much. Madam President, I rise to talk about energy today. My good friend from Rhode Island mentioned how we would like to vote, and I agree with him. I think it is an amazing thing that the biggest issue in the country today is energy and here we are, in the greatest deliberative body in the world, for some reason, not allowed to vote to try to solve this particular issue. I had a townhall meeting last night. On the telephone, we had about 1,200 callers at all times. I can assure you that while other subject matters arose, the issue constituents care most about today is gasoline prices. I am part of a bipartisan group that is trying to craft some kind of legislation to pass, and we were all asked to put down on a piece of paper those things we think ought to be considered and those things that should not be considered--five Republicans and five Democrats. After we did that, there were many things we all agreed should at least be discussed as part of an energy bill. Yet it is fascinating to me that when we have an issue of supply and demand--and I think contrary to what my friend from Rhode Island said, most economists all agree there is a supply-and-demand issue--an issue where we have continuing demand throughout the world and in this country and we have lessening of supplies and, in fact, the price of oil continues to rise, it is interesting to me that when we have this phenomenon of supply and demand, we focus on speculation. Now, this is one of those bills, unfortunately, Madam President--and I know you are from the great State of Missouri and use a lot of common sense in the things you have done there--that is a ready, aim, fire bill. This is not a bill to be taken seriously. It is a bill to sort of take the American people's minds off the issue of supply and demand. Let me read a couple of sentences. On page 14, it says: Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall impose by rule or regulation speculative position limits on trading that is not legitimate hedge trading. The bill is referring to the CFTC in that sentence. Then it goes further to say that they will, 30 days after enactment, put together an advisory group that, after 60 days, will make some recommendations. This is, of course, after the CFTC has already, per this ``shall'' language, imposed various requirements and stipulations on hedging in place. Then, after that, 270 days after that, this advisory commission will look back over what has occurred to see if it is right or wrong. This bill is not on the floor to be taken seriously, and I think most of us who have talked with people throughout the industry realize that. Again, this is something to take the voters' minds off the real issue-- the issue of supply and demand. I wish to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I am willing to look at everything there is to look at in the equation of supply and demand. There is no question that in a country which has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, has 4 percent of the population, yet uses 25 percent of the world's oil production, conservation needs to be a big part of it. I would love to talk with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about what we might do in the area of conservation. My guess is there would be a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who would reach agreement over what we ought to do as a country to lessen demand by focusing on conservation. Yesterday, in the State of Tennessee, Nissan--a great automobile producer--announced their focus on producing an all-electric car by the year 2012. I welcome that day. I look forward to the day when I and my daughters and my wife Elizabeth drive a vehicle that we plug in at night, that is being charged with base load power at low prices and that we drive the next day and not use petroleum. Why don't we debate some amendments on this floor that have to do with that? Much of the discussion has been about offshore drilling, about the Outer Continental Shelf. Again, as part of the equation, we ought to look at supplies. I am all for looking at additional offshore development. I think it only makes sense at a time when we have rising demand and lessening supplies. But I would like to talk about a lot of other things. Again, it is an interesting thing to me that one person, the majority leader of the Senate, can decide that we have one so-called speculation bill on the floor that, again, majors in the minors. The issue is supply and demand. Yet in this body of ``100 great Senators,'' we don't have the ability to talk about an issue that is the biggest issue in front of the American people. I think all of us know right now what I am doing, and this is something I am not accustomed to doing, but I am burning up time on the floor. The last speaker was burning up time on the floor. Basically, what we are doing is waiting to see if later this afternoon the majority leader of the Senate will allow 100 grownups--100 grownups elected by their respective States--we are basically waiting to see if the majority leader of the Senate will allow 100 grownups, who represent people all across this country, to actually offer amendments that might help solve the supply and demand issue we have in our country. I think it is very obvious that we, as a country, need to produce more and use less. My daughters, 19 and 20, learned this when they were in middle school; that there is an issue of supply and demand. Again, I wish to meet my colleagues in the middle. I agree that conservation, as I have stated before, needs to be a big part of this, but it is a diminishment of this body to know that basically all day long people are parading back and forth on this floor to make points on one side or the other about energy, the biggest issue before the American people, and what it is all about is killing time until we find out whether the majority leader will allow us--treating us like teenagers--allow us to offer amendments. It is an amazing thing. It seems to me that if we were going to be serious about this, that we would have the gumption to stand here on the floor, offer real amendments, talk about those amendments, and hash them out. That is why I came to the Senate. I think that is why the Presiding Officer came to the Senate and has offered so much in the way of making this body function in an appropriate way. So I hope that very soon we will move away from these political games and things that might affect the fall elections and move to the serious issues the American people care about. That is what I came to do. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CORKER. Would the Chair remind me of how much time I have.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I feel as though I have a very generous allotment, and I appreciate that. I wish to speak on the Isakson amendment. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, has tremendous experience in the area of housing, and I think he brought to this body a great proposal that is part of the bill we are now debating and that is the $8,000 first- time home buyer credit. One of the flaws in the bill today, as it sits, is the fact that this credit begins on April 1, so people who have already bought loans would be participating. I think the purpose of this amendment that he so wisely crafted and has brought forward was actually to stimulate new home buyer housing, not to reward people who have already taken action. So his amendment that I am supporting and cosponsoring would actually establish as the date of enactment the time that that 1-year time clock would begin. It only makes sense that the purpose of this provision in the bill, this compromise bill, is to stimulate home buying, not to reward people who have already done so. I hope the manager of the amendment might accept this amendment. If not, I hope we will be able to call this amendment up in the very near future after this vote.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that is being introduced in this body by Senator Schumer and myself that is designed to help people throughout our country who are having tremendous difficulties navigating the various financial institutions and who they should talk to when they have various complaints. Right now there are five different institutions of Government that oversee financial institutions throughout our country. I am on the Banking Committee, and I will tell you that if I had a complaint or something I wanted to ask about a financial institution in the State of Tennessee, I would have no idea who I should call in regard to that particular institution. It is not known to the public generally whether institutions are governed by State charter or governed by Federal charter or by which Federal charter they might be governed. We have introduced a bill called the Financial Consumer Hotline. What this will allow people throughout the country to do is to dial a toll- free number and someone on the other end of that toll-free number would direct that call immediately to the right place. Right now, the FDIC has to redirect 54 percent of the calls it receives to other entities. You can imagine, if you are a consumer in Tennessee or a consumer in Maryland or a consumer in Virginia, how frustrating that would be, to have an issue and to have to take time, if you will, to find out about that issue and to not know who to call. When I was mayor of the city of Chattanooga, we had a similar problem in that people did not know how to access city government regarding the myriad of issues with which they had to deal. They did not know which department of government to contact. We realized that and established something called a 311 number. Cities all across the country have done the same thing. What that has done is allow people to dial one number and call in about any issue and have that registered and know that is going to be dealt with. I certainly appreciate the tremendous partnership we have established on this issue with Senator Schumer from New York, who also serves on the Banking Committee and is also aware of the tremendous complications people go through in trying to get to the bottom of whatever issue it is. This bill has been introduced. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will consider this legislation. It is something that, by the way, does not cost the taxpayers of this country a dime. There is an entity that is directed through regulatory bodies to do this. This is something that does not come out of the taxpayers' pocket. It does not come out of our Treasury. I think it will enhance the ability of people throughout our country to navigate and get to the bottom of issues they might have with financial institutions. I notice no one here wishing to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if the Chair could let me know when there is 2 minutes left on my time, I would appreciate it.

Mr. CORKER. That has nothing whatsoever to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why that is done. Thirdly--and maybe most offensive--this bill sets in place something called international offsets. Others have talked about the burden on U.S. companies competing here if this bill is passed. This bill doesn't just create those burdens, which I acknowledge; it also pays them by allowing them to invest more inexpensively in other countries. I find that reprehensible, and I cannot imagine why any process such as that would be part of this bill. Most importantly, though these three flaws exist, no doubt, this bill doesn't include an energy title to cause our country to be energy secure. I think we have missed a tremendous opportunity at a time when people have a passion about dealing with the climate in our country. Americans are feeling vulnerable, as they should, as it relates to energy. I think we have missed a tremendous opportunity to bring those two groups together and solve, once and for all, the problems that exist in our country in a meaningful way. I came to the Senate to work on the big issues of our country. I am very disappointed that we will leave tomorrow having accomplished nothing, having accomplished nothing as it relates to climate, nothing as it relates to energy security, and nothing to ensure that generations who come after us will have a better way of living. With that, I will close by saying I hope in the very near future we will put aside our differences, and I hope this cloture vote tomorrow will not lock people into places they don't want to be, to show romance, if you will, as it relates to the issue. I hope that over the course of the next few months, we will be able to come together and do something that is appropriate for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak about the Climate Security Act. I think all of us realize what is getting ready to happen. Unfortunately, in the morning, there will be a cloture vote and obviously the bill will not have the votes for cloture and it will fail. Hopefully, we will return to a debate on the bill. I think the likelihood of that is very low. I wish to say that as one Senator who has spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue, I am extremely disappointed in the process we have followed as it relates to this most important piece of legislation. Yesterday at about 11:15, a 492-page amendment was placed on the desk--492 pages. It is 150 pages longer than the original bill. Yet tomorrow we have a cloture vote. I would say that almost no Senator in this building has had the chance to fully read this bill as it now is. So again, the cloture vote will fail tomorrow at about 9 o'clock. I got up this morning and I turned on the coffee pot early. I read the paper. I rode the elevator down and ran on the Mall and came back, got dressed, got in my car and came to work here, and I realized that every single process I had gone through this morning in some form or fashion would be affected by this bill if it were to pass. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have ever debated in this Senate Chamber. The fact that we have allowed such little time for debate, to me, is a tremendous disappointment. I know many proponents of this bill will say that those who vote against cloture tomorrow will vote against cloture because they do not care about climate change; they do not care about climate security. I can tell my colleagues that in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. Over a year ago, I spent time with Jeff Bingaman in Brussels, Paris, and London, meeting with carbon traders, meeting with members of the European Commission, meeting with utilities, meeting with cement manufacturers, meeting with everybody who had a stake in what occurred in Europe when they put this process in place. This last July, with a group of Senators led by Senator Boxer from California, I went to Greenland and saw firsthand the poster child, if you will, of what we have all been talking about. I met with Danish scientists. I met with scientists from our country. I have read tremendously about this issue throughout the years. Every time I have read a book or a magazine that was a proponent, I read one that was an opponent, if you will. I have gotten both sides of this issue. Our staff has spent inordinate amounts of time on this. We have offered amendments. I have actually sent a letter to every single Senator in this Chamber with detailed amendments and the background and the reason we were offering them. I have never on this Senate floor used any degree of demagoguery to talk about this issue. I have only spoken about the facts of the policies we are debating. The reason this bill is going to fail tomorrow is not because of the process. This bill is going to fail because it has serious flaws. Again, the process we went through to get to this point is one that is so inappropriate. Typically, when you have a portion of a bill, for instance, that relates to money, it goes to the Finance Committee. Typically, when you have a portion that relates to energy, it goes to the Energy Committee. That didn't happen. Most people on the EPW Committee itself candidly--as a matter of fact, almost every Member didn't even see this massive bill until it came to the floor yesterday. However, that is not even the reason it is going to fail. That is reason enough, but this bill has serious flaws. We have tried to point that out from day one. We have been totally transparent in the process. We have met with environmental groups that have been so involved in pushing this legislation; we met with their boards and pointed out along the way the three serious flaws we have seen in the bill. Other Senators have wonderful contributions to make to the bill, including Senators Domenici, Inhofe, Bingaman, and others; they have tremendous contributions to make. Let me mention the three flaws we have talked about before. No. 1, the proponents of the bill, whom I respect tremendously--and I believe their hearts are in the right place--I thank them and their staffs for the work they have done on this bill because I know they spent a lot of time. Unfortunately, the politics of climate change itself and of solving the environmental problem was not good enough. Instead, the proponents had to take trillions of dollars in the Treasury and then pre-prescribe through the year 2047--and then 3 years after in a different way--how the money was going to be spent. We haven't had a bill such as this since Medicare or Social Security. I don't think we have done something this pervasive that affects everybody in America on a daily basis. Instead of just focusing on the policy and letting the policy of cap and trade work as a potential market system, this bill had to be turned into a huge spending bill on the backs of the American people, driving up energy prices, driving up food prices, driving up clothing prices. Instead of returning that money to the American people, the proponents decided to spend every penny--almost--of the money taken in. The second thing is, marketable securities, as everybody knows, are created the day this auction process begins. Those marketable securities are called carbon allowances. They are transferred to people in this bill. It is a transference of wealth. It would be like if I had 10 shares of IBM stock and my good friend, Jeff Sessions, was over here, and I said, Jeff, I am going to give you these 10 shares of IBM stock; they are worth money and are marketable. He can sell them that day. The policy of focusing on climate wasn't enough. This bill had to take the extra step of not just spending trillions of dollars but also giving trillions of dollars away to people--by the way, this is the best part----

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I object, Madam President.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, regular order, if we could.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. That is the order. The fact is the order is if people have remaining time, they can speak after rebuttal. That is exactly right.

Mr. CORKER. That is the order that is on the floor. You can't change the rules.

Mr. CORKER. I object.

Mr. CORKER. Reserving the right to object, I think we already have a unanimous consent agreement that says exactly what is happening right now. My thought was we would have a debate on the floor.

Mr. CORKER. The American people elected us--the Senator from Rhode Island, the Presiding Officer, all of us at the same time--to focus on the big issues of this country. We have a tremendous opportunity in this body to have a balanced climate security bill that doesn't take money out of the pockets of Americans forever and spend it through bureaucracy, but to tie that with energy security and do it in a way that everyone wants, in a way that creates growth and economic development in this country. I think it is a shame--a shame--that we are squandering that opportunity by having legislation on this floor that instead takes money from the American people, never returns it, builds a bureaucracy that doesn't exist, and damages our country for the next 40 years.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I may proceed, because my name has been brought forth, for 60 seconds.

Mr. CORKER. It can only be vetoed.

Mr. CORKER. I didn't say ``men.'' I said five people.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. CORKER. Actually, I am glad the Senator from Massachusetts brought that up. That is the portion of cap-and-trade legislation that I believe is appropriate. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it takes in trillions of dollars and then pre-prescribes how that money is spent, going out into areas to people who have nothing whatsoever to do with emitting carbons. Twenty-seven percent of the allocations go out to entities in this country that have nothing whatsoever to do with emitting carbon. That is a huge unnecessary transference of wealth. I would like to yield some time to Senator Domenici. I answered the question, and I would love to debate the Senator further on the floor. I know we have the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CORKER. I will yield when I finish. I know the Senator has spent a tremendous amount of time on this, and I respect that. The reason we have cap-and-trade legislation being discussed is the fact that we want to limit the amount of carbon emissions that come out of our country. So one of the other pieces of the bill that, to me, is truly offensive is that this bill allows for something called international offsets, which is nothing more--again, I will go into this in detail when I offer an amendment--this is something that encourages companies in our country to go through a loophole so they don't have to pay the full price of carbon, and actually spend billions of dollars in countries such as China, where we already have tremendous trade deficits. I absolutely have no understanding of why we would permit that in a bill such as this, which is being designed to limit carbon emissions in our country. These international offsets have been documented to be fraudulent. We have had tremendous problems in working through the United Nations to administer these programs. I have no idea why international offsets, which have been so fraudulent and have nothing whatsoever to do with lowering emissions in our country, would be part of this bill. Let me say, in general, I realize we are not going to pass a bill this year, in all likelihood. I think that, in many ways, is regrettable. I think we as a country, right now today, when the American people are feeling very vulnerable--and right now we have many Senators in the Chamber who have such a passion as it relates to climate security--I think it is regrettable that we cannot come together and, as a part of this legislation, add many components--for instance, that one which Pete Domenici from New Mexico led us on--and create a bill that doesn't just address climate but also addresses our country's energy security. The American people are looking to us right now to act like adults. I have to say I am not sure that as a country, for the last several years, for some period of time, we have owned up to our country's major problems. We have not done that. We have a tremendous opportunity in this body this week and next week to address our country's environmental issues simultaneously with energy security. I think that is what the American people are looking to us to do. I regret the fact that this bill, instead of being about climate security, instead of being about something that drives our country toward using technology that would cause our country to be energy secure, has ended up being about money. It has ended up setting up a command-and-control economy. Look at these various wedges on this pie chart. I could show many more. It is an amazing thing that from the year 2012 through the year 2050, over a trillion dollars of this money is pre-prescribed. It is amazing that, as it relates to technology, there is a five-person board that has been set up to decide where the trade of dollars will be spent. I cannot imagine this body--I cannot imagine it--approving legislation of this type. What I hope will occur is that the American people will become aware of what this debate is about. I hope all of us will have a constructive debate in this body. My goal and hope is that we as a body will come together around climate change and energy security in an appropriate way and in such a way so those generations coming after us will have a better quality of life.

Mr. CORKER. I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 5 minutes remaining. I wish to say I am very excited to be on the floor today. I have tremendous respect for the sponsors of this bill and all those who have been involved for some time. I think everybody knows by this point that while there are a number of arguments regarding the bill that is on the floor, I choose not to debate the science. I accept the fact that we as a country and we as a world need to address this issue. I came to the Senate to focus on the big issues our country has to deal with. I saw this as one of those issues. For that reason, a year ago, I accompanied Senator Bingaman to Brussels, to Paris, and to London, where I sat down with carbon traders and with European Commission members. I met with cement manufacturers, utility providers, and all those involved, if you will, in this debate in Europe. I also was fortunate enough to accompany the chairman, Senator Boxer, to Greenland to see the poster child, if you will, of what this debate in some ways is about. Ever since that time, I have been fixated, if you will, on the goal of figuring out a way that we as a country can put in place policies that allow our GDP growth, we can continue to ensure a better standard of living for those coming after us, having energy security as a country, and making sure we have climate security all at the same time. That has been my goal. I have seen, actually, this debate that is taking place this summer right now as a tremendous opportunity for us to come together as a country and to focus on those things. Some of what I saw in Europe were unintended consequences, things such as fuel-switching that took place, when people move from coal to natural gas and all of a sudden found themselves very dependent on an unfriendly government--Russia--to supply natural gas and using that political clout, if you will, over some of those countries that were dependent. So I have worked with Senator Warner and with others to try to craft legislation that I think works for our country. I see this as a tremendous opportunity; I do. A lot of people think this is not a good time to be talking about climate change legislation. They say that because we have $4 gasoline at the pumps, this is a terrible time to be talking about legislation of this nature. I actually think this is a perfect time to be talking about it. I think there is a passion in our country, exhibited by the chairman, to address the issue of climate change. I think there are many people in our country who feel that same way. I think Americans throughout our country, seeing the prices at the pump, are feeling very vulnerable as it relates to their own energy security and realize that we as a country need to have a comprehensive energy policy that we do not have today. So I see this tremendous opportunity for these two groups who have been at odds for so many years--actually generations--to actually come together and to do something that is good for our country, both from the standpoint of the environment but also making sure our country is energy secure. Now, I am going to say something I know that may not be that well received, but I think this bill, unfortunately--and with all the respect that I have for the sponsors--I think this bill unfortunately squanders that opportunity. The reason I say this bill squanders that opportunity, instead of addressing those two things I mentioned in a pure fashion, we have resorted to the old-time politics of making sure we support various interest groups around our country and spread trillions of dollars around the country to try to win support for this bill. I think that is a shame. I plan to offer some amendments I will discuss at the right time. Let me make sure the American people understand what happens with cap-and- trade legislation. Most Senators do. What this bill contemplates is capping the amount of carbon emissions our country emits, and then reducing that cap over time, from the year 2012 to the year 2050, and establishing a price for that carbon by creating an auction. It would be much like if Senator Domenici and I and Senator Warner decided we were going to create a company, and what we did was allocated ourselves shares of that company, and in order to make the company grow, we sold public shares in the marketplace. Those shares would generate income into our company and allow us to grow, if that is what we wanted to do. But the day we went public, it would enrich us. Those allocations of shares we allocated to ourselves would enrich us immediately because they become marketable securities. Obviously, what this bill does is, No. 1, takes trillions of dollars into the Treasury beginning in 2012 through an auction process; in other words, we sell carbon allowances on the public market. On the very day that occurs, the allowances that are talked about as if they mean nothing become marketable securities, and they enrich all of those entities that receive those allocations. That is where I think this bill misses the mark. The auction proceeds that come in with this bill--let's be fair and I will not use words that are demagogic--when we pass cap-and-trade legislation, we all understand it increases the cost of energy that is generated through fossil fuel. That is a fact. That is petroleum, diesel, coal, ethanol, all of those things that, when they are consumed, emit carbon and will cost more on day one. So the American public is going to be paying for that. Everything Americans buy--if this bill passes--that has something to do with energy will increase. When they go to the gas pump, it will cost more. When they pay their utility bills at the end of the month, it will cost more. When they buy food and clothing, it will cost more. What this bill, unfortunately, does is takes in trillions of dollars--by the way, the EPA has modeled this based on a price of $22 per ton for carbon in the beginning. I want people to understand that today, in essence, in London carbon is selling for $41 a ton. Based on the modeling, this bill, over its life, transfers wealth of $6.7 trillion. But if it were, say, based on the prices of carbon today in London, it might be as much as $13 trillion. We all know if this bill passes, every American will pay more for energy, and I understand that. By the way, I want everybody in this body to know I am open to discussing cap-and-trade legislation that takes our country in the right direction. What I am so opposed to--and I am so saddened by the fact that this bill does this--is this bill takes trillions into our Treasury and then, in a prescribed way, much of it in nondiscretionary spending, spends that money from the year 2012 through the year 2050. We have talked a lot about earmarks in this body. This is, in fact, the mother of all earmarks--to make sure I am neutral, it is the mother and father of all earmarks. This, in essence, creates an entitlement program from 2012 through 2050. I don't understand, if proponents want to affect our climate, why they don't take those trillions in and then immediately redistribute all of those dollars back to the American citizens. The reason is--and I am sad to say this--this bill attempts to win support of the American people and interest groups throughout our country by the same old thing that has gotten our country in trouble today, and that is spreading this money around to the various interest groups throughout the country and prescribing the spending in a way that I don't know of any bill since Medicare or Social Security. I don't know of a bill that has done this to this extent in modern times. Another piece that goes unnoticed is the allocation process. This bill allocates out to entities all across this country carbon allowances. Those are marketable securities. It is the same as owning a share in IBM. It is a tremendous transference of wealth. Twenty-seven percent of the allocation in this bill goes to entities that have nothing to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why we would do that in legislation of this nature. I think it is reprehensible. One of the reasons we see so many people walking the halls of our Senate offices in tailored suits, carrying nice briefcases, is that people who are in the know--I know the Senator mentioned some of these companies--realize this is a tremendous transference of wealth. If they sit at the table and they have something to do with how these allowances are allocated, that might be better for them even in operating their companies, as well, because we are creating a situation that transfers trillions of dollars of wealth. I am going to be offering some amendments, and I am disturbed that some of the sponsors have indicated these are poison pill amendments. I have focused solely on the policies of this bill. I have never used demagogic language to describe this bill--never. I have never tried to debate the science. I am trying to focus on the policies of the legislation.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Act. I understand I have 20 minutes.

Mr. CORKER. Let me just say, I hope we have further debate. I respect people on both sides of the aisle. Surely, we can come up with a way to make sure our environment is appropriately dealt with and that we have energy security----

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sophie Trads from my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks.