Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I know we are in Republican time. I would like to use some of the Republican time to talk about an important issue in the farm bill, which is catfish.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me give the other side of the story here. We have a lot of fish that gets imported from important trading partners such as Vietnam and other Asian countries. It is disputed whether they meet the definition of catfish. They certainly aren't an American variety of catfish; they are probably some other type of fish. But regardless of all of the science there, it is important that we inspect these fish as they come in because they are not grown in the same sanitary conditions we have in the United States. They use different herbicides and pesticides, and they have different pollutants. In fact, we have seen documented cases where they are raised in sewage water--water contaminated with sewage. We need to make sure these fish are inspected when they come into the United States. That is what the underlying bill provides, and that is what I support.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Texas is waiting so let me conclude in the next couple of minutes. We talked about clean coal and why that is important. Let me tell my colleagues what else is important. Based on the statistics, the health benefits are between $37 billion and $90 billion. That is an estimate for 2016. For every dollar we put in, we get up to $9 back in health benefits. The new rules could prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 140,000 cases of respiratory symptoms, over 9,000 cases of bronchitis, 5,700 hospital emergency room visits, 540,000 missed work or sick days, and 3.2 million days when people must restrict their activities. Mercury, they say, causes brain damage in more than 315,000 children each year. Half of the U.S. manmade mercury comes from coal-fired powerplants. The new rules require removing 90 percent of that mercury. So back to the point of Senator Alexander. This approach provides certainty. It ensures grid reliability. It allows sufficient time for utilities to comply under this bad economy. It gives manufacturing and skilled labor jobs to U.S. companies and U.S. workers, and it also reduces health problems and costs associated with the coal industry right now. With that, I ask my colleagues to consider looking at the Alexander and Pryor approach. I would love to visit with any of my colleagues who are so inclined. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague from Tennessee and his leadership when it comes to clean air. He has a long history for fighting for clean air in Tennessee in this country, and we share the common goal of maintaining a safe and reliable source of electricity, but also one that is safe for human health. Cleaner air means better health for Arkansans, for Tennesseans, and for everyone in the entire country. This all started back in 1990 with some Clean Air Act amendments signed by President George H.W. Bush authorizing EPA to regulate air pollutant emissions from powerplants. These regulations have been two decades in the making. As I said, it started back in 1990, and a lot has changed since then. But one thing that has improved greatly since then is technology. These clean air rules try to make these coal-fired powerplants 90 percent cleaner. They can now achieve that 90 percent reduction from uncontrolled emissions of mercury and other pollutants because of technology. We have the ability to make this achievable today. I don't know if that was true 20 years ago, but it is certainly true today. I would like to visit with my colleagues for the next few minutes about the plan Senator Alexander has put forward in which I heartily join him. It is a three-step plan: First, vote no on Senator Inhofe's resolution that we understand will come up sometime in the next several days. Second, consider voting for the legislation that we are proposing and that we would like to move to the Senate floor within a reasonable amount of time that would basically say all the utility companies get 6 years to comply with these new rules. Again, these new rules that are now on the books and have been on the books since February have been 20 years in the making. The third step we are proposing is a letter to the President of the United States to urge him in the interim to give the additional 2 years, which he has the authority to do under the law. He can do 2 years with an Executive order. Let me just walk through those very quickly. Some of the reasons I am going to vote no on Senator Inhofe's resolution of disapproval is because although I believe the EPA is wrong in their timetable, I think 3 years is too short. I don't think that is enough time. As Senator Alexander said a few moments ago, we can do the math that is in the statute and in the regulations, and it probably adds up to 6 years. Let's go ahead and be up front and give them the 6 years. Six years will do it, and that creates certainty. That means people can plan, that means people can schedule equipment, and skilled laborers can come from the United States and not outsourced from overseas, and most of the equipment will be made in the United States. That gives our utility companies time to do all of this. I think the EPA is wrong in the sense that they are trying to force this over a 3-year period. I think 4 years is a minimum and 6 years is what we really need. I think that just makes the most sense under the circumstances. With all due respect to Senator Inhofe, for whom I have a lot of respect, his resolution of disapproval is wrong. I think it is the wrong approach. I think it is over the top. It reverses course and, basically, if I understand it, it allows the utility companies to pollute at will. It actually creates a legal problem that I am not sure we adequately discussed on the Senate floor. I am sure we will as we go through this process and as Senator Inhofe's resolution actually comes to the Senate floor, but it creates a legal problem. If it were to pass, what does the future hold? The law says if a resolution of disapproval passes, then the agency cannot put forward a substantially similar regulation. What does that mean in this circumstance? There is no legal precedent for that. Some argue if the resolution of disapproval passes, that is it, Katey bar the door; that this is no holds barred, so to speak, when it comes to oil and coal plants and what they can produce. I certainly hope that is not the case. I don't know if that is the case, but legal experts disagree, and I don't think that is a chance we should take. There is no doubt that sending plumes of mercury and particulate matters and things such as sulfur dioxide, et cetera, creates serious health hazards for children and adults. One can look at the statistics when it comes to heart attacks or premature deaths, asthma, and all kinds of different ailments that human beings suffer. There is no doubt that these coal-fired plants contribute to that. As we have seen, when we grandfather these plants, they don't, out of the goodness of their hearts, do the things necessary to stop the polluting. What they do is they keep running them because they are grandfathered. That needs to stop at some point in the future as well. I think our approach helps in that way as well. I talked about the EPA being wrong and I talked about Senator Inhofe having the wrong approach. The third thing I would say is let's extend it, not end it. I think that by making clear we want the full 6 years-- the 3 years in the statute, the 1 year in the State, the 2 years that the President has discretion on--I think that 6 years gives everybody ample time to plan, take care of business as they should, and make sure we have electricity capacity in this country. I would say we need to stop the scare tactics about job loss and the sky is falling and this is the end of the coal industry in America. I completely disagree with that. I think the United States would be very smart to continue to use coal because we have something like 400 years worth of coal usage. We are kind of like the Saudi Arabia of coal. So I am not trying to hurt the coal industry. I am not trying to kill jobs or do anything like that. But I think if we look at the small cost--we have to understand that these plants are worth billions and billions of dollars and we are talking about adding some costs to that. One estimate I saw is it is going to add about 3 percent. But if we look at the balancing of costs of what we are trying to accomplish here versus the health costs in savings we get, there is really no comparison. I think it is fair to say that what the Alexander approach does is it actually saves kids' lives. It is good for business. It is good for our environment. It is good for our people. I think what we see here is a false choice that some people are trying to present. Some people say we have to be either pro coal or pro health. That is a false choice. We can be both. We can be pro coal and have a good, robust coal industry. If we were to open a magazine here in Washington or the Washington Post, oftentimes we will see a full- page ad that talks about clean coal. We turn on the television and watch some of the news shows and the coal industry is advertising clean coal. What are they talking about? This is what they are talking about. They are talking about cleaning up these coal plants so we can still use this precious American resource, but we do it in such a way that we eliminate 90 percent of the pollution and the harmful particulates that are in coal--90 percent. That is clean coal. That is what they are talking about. So let's do this, but let's do it over a 6-year period, not over a 3- or 4-year period. Let's not force ourselves into a false choice. Let's do the right thing for this generation and the generations to come.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask that I be given 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the end of May marked the end of an era at the Internal Revenue Service. Floyd Williams, a fellow Arkansan, has served as the Director of Legislative Affairs at the IRS for the last 16 years. On May 31, 2012, Floyd served his last day with the IRS, and I rise today to thank him for his many years of service to our Nation. Floyd began his government service many years ago serving as a congressional page for the late, great Senator from Arkansas, J. William Fulbright. Captivated by the energy of Washington, Floyd spent most of his adult life and professional career in the District of Columbia. During breaks from his undergraduate education at the University of Virginia, Floyd worked as a member of the grounds crew for the Architect of the Capitol, as a document clerk in the Senate Document Room, and as a Senate doorkeeper. After earning his juris doctor from the University of Arkansas, he returned to Washington, where he worked as a Capitol police officer while obtaining an LLM from Georgetown University. Floyd began his professional career in 1972 at the IRS as a tax law specialist in the Individual Income Tax Branch before working as a legislative attorney for the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. He spent several years in the private sector as senior tax manager at Coopers and Lybrand, vice president and legislative counsel for the National Association of Home Builders, and senior tax counsel for the Tax Foundation. Floyd returned to government service at the Treasury Department, where he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and Public Liaison (Tax and Budget) and previously as Senior Tax Advisor for Public and Legislative Affairs. After his tenure with the Treasury Department, he returned to the IRS as Director of Legislative Affairs, a role he has held for the last 16 years. As someone who continues to claim Fayetteville, AR, as his hometown, Floyd Williams has been a great asset to me, my staff, and Arkansas over the years. I will certainly miss his insight and depth of knowledge, and I wish him all the best in his retirement. Thank you, again, Floyd, for your many years of service.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, Dr. Ed Coulter was once told by a colleague in the education field that most individuals spend their lives helping, tweaking, making something better, but seldom having the chance to create. Ed grasped on to that last word and has spent the last 17 years of his professional career doing just that: creating something remarkable for the community and town of Mountain Home. On June 30, 2012, Ed Coulter will serve his last day as chancellor of Arkansas State University Mountain Home, ASUMH, and today I wish to thank him for his dedication to public education in Arkansas and his commitment to the people of Mountain Home. Ed's love of learning and teaching goes back to an early age. At age 10, his parents, Bill and Evelyn Coulter, purchased a resort on Lake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR. Ed found an early thrill in teaching by helping countless resort guests learn how to ski and enjoy the water. This love of teaching and his parents' encouragement to acquire a quality education led Ed to enroll at Ouachita Baptist University, OBU, in Arkadelphia. It was here that Ed met his first wife, the late Fran Dryer of Mountain Home. Ed would graduate magna cum laude with a bachelor of science in education, and the very next year he would also graduate from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville with his master's in education. Needing 3 years of professional experience before continuing his education, Ed served as a junior high principal in Mountain Home before ultimately obtaining his doctorate degree. With the degree in hand, Ed and Fran returned to Arkadelphia and OBU, a place they would call home for the next 25-five years. In this span, Ed served as assistant to the president and also as the vice president for administration. The latter position taught Ed a great deal about budgeting, fundraising, and building new buildings. These skills would come in handy when Ed was called back to Mountain Home in 1995 as chancellor of ASUMH. Mountain Home long had dreamed of providing a high-quality education to its community and north central Arkansas. Truly a community effort, a group of dedicated citizens raised enough funds in the 1970s to purchase a church building to serve as the school. Ed's job as chancellor would be to take the school from this church building where he and Fran were married, and transform it into a modern university. With 78 acres of land purchased in a nearby field, Ed set a vision for the new campus and started the task of making that vision become a reality. Seventeen years later, ASUMH has expanded from a small community college to a thriving institution that today serves over 1,500 people. Ed's tenure as chancellor will be remembered for the rapid expansion of the campus; however, Ed's impact extends far beyond the physical buildings. Due to his leadership at ASUMH, thousands of students and Mountain Home have been forever changed by having a first-class university in the local community. As Dr. Ed Coulter starts the next chapter of his life, I know Arkansas State University Mountain Home and the Arkansas education community will miss his leadership and guidance. I thank him for his many decades of service to the people of Arkansas, and I wish him all the happiness as he and his wife Lucretia travel and enjoy time with their 13 grandchildren.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would ask to have 5 more minutes to wrap up.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized at 4 p.m.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what this says in the committee report is that the 500-year flood notation should be sent out to everyone so everyone knows this property is in a 500-year floodplain. The problem is folks are not going to be able to get mortgage insurance, they are not going to be able to do real estate development; commercial real estate is going to hurt from that. They are not going to be able to have economic development projects in these areas because of the floodplain notation. Also on page 8 of the committee report it talks about how they are going to spend about $400 million annually in doing this mapping. Well, if they are going to map out the 500-year floodplain, that is a lot more map than the 100-year floodplain. They can save quite a bit of money by doing that. The bottom line is these levees are designed correctly, they are built correctly, they are maintained correctly, and they are certified that they are safe. What is the point of people having to get flood insurance in that area when it is not required right now? I also think this legislation requires a huge conflict of interest for FEMA. It is not FEMA's fault; they are not asking for this. It is what the Congress is trying to do. Basically under this law FEMA would write the regs, they will draw the lines, they will control the timing, they will set the standards, they will update the maps, they will maintain the maps. If there is an appeal, they would have to go to FEMA. They also set the rates, they collect the money, and they spend the money. Everything is done by FEMA. Obviously FEMA is going to have an interest to make sure this program is adequately solvent and funded, and obviously they should. They have control of every aspect of this, with no checks and balances in the system. There are going to be millions of people who will pay in to make this solvent, I guess, but it will never need flood insurance. With that, I wish to say I hope my colleagues who represent these States, when they look at section 107, will see what I see and we can all work together to either take out section 107 completely or get the 30-day extension so we can have time to take it out in the next few days. Order Of Procedure

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the National Flood Insurance Program, which is a program we are now trying to reauthorize in the Senate. Senators Johnson and Shelby have shepherded this bill through the Banking Committee. I have a ton of respect for both of those Senators and the work of the Banking Committee because they worked very hard to get it to the floor, to get it ready. In fact, it expires on May 31. If for some reason we cannot work out something here in the next couple of days, I sincerely hope we will extend this on at least a short-term basis--for another, say, 30 days--to give us time to work this out. The National Flood Insurance Program is too important to mortgages and commercial real estate, et cetera, to let it lapse. If we cannot work it out, I hope we can get a 30-day extension. I support that effort. We need to reauthorize this legislation, this program, but we need to do it in the right way. Several Senators over the course of the last few months have stated objections to S. 1940. Here are mine. I have listed some of mine in a letter we sent to the chairman and ranking member last month or so--November 15, 2011. We listed several objections and concerns we had with the bill. There were 13 Senators from 9 States who signed this letter going to Senators Johnson and Shelby. Again, we appreciate their efforts, but we have to do this the right way. Let me run through three or four or five of my concerns about this legislation and tell my colleagues why I cannot support it in its current form and why I do support an extension but why, in the end, if the bill stays the way it is now, I cannot support it. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in the effort of not supporting this legislation as it is currently drafted. Let me start with the bill itself, S. 1940. The primary objection I have is in section 107 of the legislation. It is titled ``Mandatory Coverage Areas.'' Basically what it does is it redefines ``special flood hazard areas.'' This may not sound very exciting or very fun to people, but this is critically important. I am showing a map here on the floor today. All of these counties in the dark green--there are 881 counties total that have levees in their counties. To my understanding, well over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives somewhere near a levee. They may not realize it because the levees work and they don't have floods, but if you see this map, you can see the levees all over the country. If you are a Senator representing one of those States, I strongly encourage you and your staff to look at section 107 of the legislation. Here is part of it, 107(b): Residual Risk Areas--The regulations required by subsection (a) shall require the expansion of areas of special flood hazards to include areas of residual risk that are located behind levees or near dams or other flood control structures, as determined by the Administrator. Subsection (c) says: Mandatory Participation in National Flood Insurance Program-- (c)(1) In General--Any area described in subsection (b) [the one I just read] shall be subject to the mandatory purchase requirements. . . . Then go down to (c)(3): In carrying out the mandatory purchase requirement under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall ensure that the price of flood insurance policies in areas of residual risk accurately reflects the level of flood protection provided by any levee, dam, or other flood control structure in such area, regardless of the certification status of the flood control structure. So regardless of whether these levees and dams are certified--in many cases by the Corps of Engineers, in other cases by private engineering firms--regardless of whether they are certified, the people behind those levees are going to be required to purchase flood insurance. Let me read that one more time: The regulations required by subsection (a) shall require [there is no wiggle room there] the expansion of areas of special flood hazards to include [these] areas. . . . This is a great expansion of this program. I want to talk about the expansion in just a moment, but let me say that the folks in these areas--I know it is certainly true in my State of Arkansas--the people in these areas currently pay for flood protection. In most cases, what they do is, through some sort of local levy or local tax--it is different in different places, but somehow, someway, they pay to build and maintain these levees. They are paying out of their pockets right now to make sure they do not get flooded. What this bill does and what FEMA would do under this bill--they would be required to do it, wouldn't have any wiggle room--what they would be required to do is make them pay again; not only have to pay for their own levee, they have to pay for flood insurance for floods that will never happen in their areas because these levees are certified. Again, this is 881 counties, 50 percent of the U.S. population. Over half the counties in Arkansas have levees. There are over 1,200 dams in our State. I don't have the number of dams for everybody all over the country, but it is over 1,200 in my State, so you can multiply that over how many dams you might think there are in the United States. It is a huge number, and it will affect over half the people in the United States. I mentioned that these folks are already paying for their own flood protection through local levies. Now, also, according to this law, they are going to have to pay for insurance. In addition to that, to rub salt in the wounds, what they are going to have to do is their local counties are going to have to pass an ordinance that FEMA has written and it is going to restrict the land use. In many cases, that ordinance will diminish the property values, diminish the ability for them to do economic development in their communities. If we can just take one example of something that happened last year, last year we had terrible flooding in the midsection of the country. Many of you remember that. The Corps of Engineers ended up having to blow the levee at Bird's Point. That is part of the Corps of Engineers' Mississippi River and tributary system. By the way, we have to thank the Corps of Engineers and praise them for the engineering they have done on the river. I know there have been a few problems over the years. Some obviously happened in Katrina. But overall the Corps of Engineers designed things that work. Certainly when you look at last year, the 2011 flood of last year, in the Mississippi River, one of the longest rivers in the world, certainly the longest in North America, there was more water that flowed through the gauging stations from Cairo, IL, to Natchez, MS, than in any flood in recorded history. The flow at Cairo, IL--the confluence of the Mississippi and the Ohio--was over 2 million cubic feet per second. That was running through the Mississippi River right there. At Helena, AR, it was running at 2.3 million cubic feet per second. In some locations--the Corps of Engineers is in the process of determining this; they are not ready to say it yet--in some locations up and down the Mississippi River system, they are considering whether this actually was not a 100-year flood or 250-year flood, this was actually a 500-year flood, the largest flood in history. All of this Mississippi River--MR&T, we call it, Mississippi River and tributary system--all that has cost our taxpayers $32 billion since its inception, but just in the flood last year, it saved taxpayers $110 billion in damages. That is a great return on investment. We need to honor that return on investment. We need to not charge people additional flood insurance for areas that do not flood. They maybe had the 500-year flood up and down the Mississippi or maybe in certain parts of it, and there was not 1 acre of ground that went underwater. It was a new flood of record. Ten million acres of land were protected, 1 million structures were protected, and, again, it prevented $110 billion of property damage. There were no lives lost, and not 1 acre was flooded. The system worked exactly according to plan. Now this bill comes in and says: Well, even though we just had the 250-year or the 500-year flood, still we want to make all these people up and down the Mississippi in all these counties--not all the people but in certain parts of these counties, depending on what the flood maps say--we want to require them to pay for flood insurance when it is never going to flood there. I want my colleagues to know that this provision, section 107 in the Senate bill, is not in the House bill. I think the reason it is not--I can't speak for the House, of course, but I think the reason it is not is for the reasons I am saying right here. We know it is not going to flood in these areas. This is the Corps of Engineers. This is the best levee system in the world, and it is keeping these folks safe and dry when the floods come. Also, I wanted to say the House does not have section 107 in their bill. It never did. There is a House amendment offered by Congressman Cardoza who took out a requirement to show these areas are on their maps, and that vote passed 261 to 163. So not only can we get consistent with the House because we can get rid of section 107, but we can also get rid of other specific parts of this legislation that will be more consistent with the House. Here is a map of the Mississippi River, the area I am talking about. We can see the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and a little bit of Kentucky and Illinois is in there as well. But this large blue area is what they call the historic floodplain. Before man came, before people started building levees, before they started draining swamps and trying to manage the land, this is the area that would flood. One thing important to know about this is that a lot of this area in light blue has some of the richest farmland in the world. The reason it is so rich is that for centuries or eons or however long it was, this river would flood periodically and put this very rich soil out there. That is one reason why in this part of the country they can grow almost anything. That soil is great. This is a huge industry for the area, and it is important we keep it going. It is also critically important for U.S. trade and the U.S. economy. This is the breadbasket, so to speak, of the United States right here. We have that area growing food and fiber for everyone. It is critical we keep that going. Once the Corps of Engineers gets control of the Mississippi River-- this is what it looks like now when it floods. This is now the floodplain. If you go back to last year when it flooded so badly, this is what it looked like, with one exception; they blew out this one little area in Birds Point to give a little bit of relief. Again, that was by design and that worked. The first problem I have with the bill is section 107. Another problem is the general expansion of what this bill does to the National Flood Insurance Program. One of the things buried in the bill that a lot of people may not see is in section 118. Section 118 talks about how the Administrator needs to establish an ongoing program under which they review and update and maintain National Flood Insurance Program rate maps in accordance with this section, et cetera, et cetera. Then they go down their criteria of what they need to look at. It says here ``all populated areas and areas of possible population growth located not within''--not the 100-year floodplain. The current law is the 100-year floodplain. What this plan says is the 500-year floodplain. We don't have a map of that because the Corps of Engineers has not finished mapping and FEMA has not accepted all the maps yet. We don't know exactly what that is going to look like, but I am going to say it is going to look something like this here. It is a good bet that a lot of people in this light blue area are going to have flood insurance. Based on the flood we had last year, they are never going to get flooded, not in 100 years, and certainly not in 500 years. They are not going to get flooded, but this says they must purchase flood insurance. This is a huge expansion of the program. It has a big impact not just on homeowners, which is obviously very important. They are not going to be able to get a mortgage if they are in a floodplain. What this law says in the committee report is that notice will be provided to property owners in the 500-year floodplain to inform them of their flood risks, which may lead to more owners protecting their property through flood insurance.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, my colleague and I would like to extend a special birthday greetings to former Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt. So with the President's approval, I will turn it over to Senator Boozman and let him lead off.

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, John Paul Hammerschmidt is 90. There are many colleagues here in this Chamber, who serve in this body today, who worked alongside him either during their service in the House or when they were in the Senate. He is one of the Arkansas greats. He served northwest Arkansas, which is the Third Congressional District, 26 years in the Congress. Looking back at his career, John Paul once said, ``The only reason people should be in public office is to purely serve other people.'' Indeed, he set the bar for constituent service--from delivering a Social Security check to a senior bogged down in bureaucracy or fighting for disability benefits for a veteran. Today, each of us in Arkansas congressional delegation tries to emulate his legendary casework management. One of John Paul's most significant contributions was preserving the Buffalo River as a free-flowing stream. According to the Pryor Center for Arkansas Oral and Visual History, John Paul first floated the Buffalo at age 12 after taking wood from his father's lumberyard to build himself a boat. Nearly 40 years later, he established the Buffalo as the first National River. This was not an easy achievement, but one that was built with persistence and through relationships within the community. Today, tens of thousands of Arkansas families, including mine, enjoy floating the Buffalo National River. John Paul also used his time in Congress to help northwest Arkansas expand its infrastructure to keep up with the region's fast growth. It is one of the fastest growing sections of the country. As a member of the Public Works Committee, John Paul was credited with securing bipartisan support on key infrastructure legislation. We could use a little of his magic today. You can't go far in northwest Arkansas without seeing his impact. We have the John Paul Hammerschmidt Highway, an access road to Carter Field near Rogers, an industrial park at Diamond City, JPH Plaza, the John Paul Hammerschmidt Business and Conference Center at North Arkansas College in Harrison, John Paul Hammerschmidt Lake at Fort Smith and the JPH Federal Building in Fayetteville. Upon John Paul's retirement, former Congressman, Commerce and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying: There is no individual in the House who is more loved and respected than John Paul Hammerschmidt. His honesty, gentleness, decency, and integrity are second to none. Don't be swayed by his quiet manner, because underneath is a man with strong convictions, a sense of purpose, and a keen desire to get things done. It is fair to say that John Paul never actually retired. He remains involved in many civic organizations, including the Northwest Arkansas Council and March of Dimes. Higher education continues to be a priority. John Paul serves on not one but two boards of trustees--the Board of Trustees at the University of the Ozarks and he is a Trustee of Arkansas State University. John Paul Hammerschmidt has spent decades serving others and giving back to his community. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to all he has achieved so far and to wish him a happy 90th birthday and many more years of health and happiness. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a friend of mine who is going to be voted on by the Senate shortly to be a U.S. district court judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. But before I do, I need to offer a few comments on what the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Illinois said a few moments ago that I agree with. It is taking too long to get these nominees to this point in the process. There are too many games that are being played. From my stand, both sides are at fault. I would hope my colleagues would stop playing games and stop even the blame game, but let's get to work and let's help clear up the backlog in the Federal judiciary. Right now, it is underresourced. We do have a judicial emergency in this particular district I am about to talk about. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied. We need these judges on the bench, and I would hope the partisanship would stop. In Arkansas we are very fortunate to have very strong Federal judges. We have a history of that. Part of the reason we do is because our judges are, for the most part, nonpolitical. Sure, they come from various backgrounds, but there is a consensus on these judges that they are going to be good judges, and that is the tradition we have in our State. We have a total of eight district court judges in our State, and Kris Baker fits perfectly in that line. She has a true record of distinguished service in the legal community. She is well known and well respected, and she will be a great U.S. district court judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The court right now, nationwide, is about 20 percent understaffed. That is why it is great to have someone who has an ABA ``well- qualified'' recommendation to go along with her nomination. She came out of the Judiciary Committee on a very large bipartisan vote. The reason is she has been with a midsized law firm in Little Rock since 2000, she regularly has accepted prisoner and other appointment cases from the Federal courts, she has played a leadership role not just in the legal community but in other organizations in the larger community, and she is going to be a fantastic addition to the Federal bench, not just for Arkansas but nationwide. Whenever I look at these nominees, I ask myself three questions: First, can they be fair and impartial? I think for Kris, absolutely the answer is yes. Second, do they bring to the bench credentials that represent the best and the brightest in the legal community? In her case, the answer is yes. Third--this is especially important for trial court judges--do they have the proper judicial temperament? For Kris Baker, the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding yes. So I would ask my colleagues to give her a favorable voice vote, as I understand it, in a few moments. But that tells us how noncontroversial she is and what a great credit she has been to the legal community and how excited we are to have her as a member of the Federal judiciary. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, this, hopefully, will be a noncontroversial amendment. Basically, it is a sense of the Senate that the Postal Service should not close any postal facilities or post offices until enactment of this postal reform bill. So this is a sense of the Senate. The idea is we don't know exactly when the House is going to pass their bill, if they ever do. But we will have a sense of the Senate on the record. The Postal Service's self-imposed moratorium expires May 15. Hopefully, this will give them time to extend this until a bill is passed. If this bill does pass--and I hope it does--this is a major reset for the Postal Service, and I hope much of the rationale for closing these offices goes away with the passage of this bill. Madam President, I would love to have a voice vote on this, if that is possible.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask that we go to amendment No. 2036.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I come to the floor today to celebrate the service of Senator Barbara Mikulski, one of the most tenacious and effective senators to serve in the U.S. Senate. This month, following 41 years of public service, Senator Mikulski has reached a new milestone in serving in the U.S. Congress longer than any woman in history. But as she has said, ``It's not how long you serve, but how well you serve.'' Both the State of Maryland and the entire Nation have benefited from Senator Mikulski's stamina as well her energy, intellect, and compassion. Today, we can see the difference she has made in our schools, health care, paychecks, and workplaces. Senator Mikulski follows in the footsteps of the legendary Hattie Caraway of Arkansas. As the wife of Thaddeus Caraway, a former Congressman and U.S. Senator for Arkansas, Hattie assumed her husband's place in the Senate following his death in 1931. She once said, ``The time has passed when a woman should be placed in a position and kept there only while someone else is being groomed for the job.'' A year later, she ran for reelection, becoming the first woman elected to a 6- year term. She surpassed several milestones, including serving as the first female Senator to preside over the Senate and the first woman to serve as the chairwoman of a committee. It would take 74 more years until a woman senator chaired a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Mikulski, now at the reins of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, has shown great leadership and vision as chairwoman and it has been a privilege to work with her. While we share many interests, we have worked most closely to advance the growth of science parks, strengthen law enforcement, and ensure U.S. companies can compete in the 21st century. I look forward to a continued partnership, congratulate Senator Mikulski on this historic achievement, and express my deep appreciation for all that she has done.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleagues for passing the highway bill yesterday, which included language from Mariah's Act, a bill I introduced last year. This bill reauthorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, and will improve safety programs on our roadways and safety standards in our vehicles. Mariah's Act was named after Mariah West, a teen from Rogers, AR. A day before her high school graduation in 2010, Mariah was killed as a result of texting while driving. Mariah's mother, Merry, has since become an advocate against texting and driving and continues to promote safe driving habits across the country. In part, Mariah's Act will prevent others from a similar tragedy by concentrating resources to prevent distracted driving. In 2010, more than 3,000 people died and thousands were hurt in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver. Along with distracted driving, Mariah's Act addresses NHTSA's two core missions: vehicle safety and highway safety. By improving these areas, we hope to continue to reduce traffic fatalities and reduce damage when accidents do occur. While I was pleased to hear that the number of traffic fatalities fell 3 percent between 2009 and 2010, there were still over 32,000 traffic fatalities throughout our country in 2011. I believe we can do better to lower the number of deaths on our roadways by consistently improving safety. Lifesaving protections for children and young drivers are key components of this bill. This is important because motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 5 to 34. As a parent of two teenagers, I know the fears of first transporting your children, and then seeing them get behind the wheel. Because vehicular accidents are so deadly to our young people, I was pleased to introduce a bill with strong protections for our youth. Another specific issue that Mariah's Act addresses is a problem we have been facing for a long time, impaired driving. Impaired driving still remains a deadly problem across the country. In 2010, 31 percent of all fatal crashes were alcohol-related, and more than 10,000 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. We, as a country, should be taking a strong stance for ending this behavior and Mariah's Act helps develop the laws and technology to do it. Other provisions in this bill include updates and consolidation of highway safety programs; ensuring emerging electronics and technologies in vehicles are safe; and improved transparency and accountability in vehicle investigations. Along with NHTSA, the Commerce section of this Highway bill includes provisions of two bills I introduced last year, the Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act and the Safe Roads Act of 2011. The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act will help authorities improve compliance with hours-of-service regulations that keep fatigued commercial truck and bus drivers off the road. The Safe Roads Act will establish a national clearinghouse for verified positive alcohol and drug test results of commercial motor vehicle operators. This will prevent a bad actor from failing a drug test in one State and simply going across a State line to try to beat the test. Our safety is compromised everyday by those bad acting truck and bus drivers that are fatigued or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We needed to strengthen our current regulations to ensure these drivers cannot bypass the law. These provisions are a practical way to ensure that the commercial driving industry is reducing the number of unsafe drivers on the road. Last year, there were over 5 million accidents on our roads resulting in over 32,000 lives lost. That is why we need to continue to fine tune highway safety programs to better target prevention, enforcement and oversight. I am pleased that all three of these provisions were included in this Highway bill and that they will help reduce the number of tragedies families face due to automobile related deaths and injuries. I would like to thank everyone for their input and believe that we have a bill that will complete the goal of increasing safety on our roadways.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I think it is unanimous on this side of the aisle that we are going to miss the Senator from Texas when she leaves, and it is sad to hear about her doing something for the last time in the Senate. She has been a wonderful Senator and colleague and all of us on the Democratic side, and I am sure the Republican side as well, will greatly miss her. I wish the Record to reflect that Texas does have a glorious history. One of the things we are proud of in our State is that many of the men who gave their lives for the republic of Texas at the Alamo actually passed through Arkansas because that was the Southwest Trail back in those days. Many of those men passed through the State--actually, it was a meeting place, maybe a tavern I think they might have called it back then--near Hope, AR. So we share a little piece of that history in our State as well.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the recognition. I wish to talk about something that is on everyone's mind. When I was in Arkansas last week for the recess, I did four or five townhall meetings and pretty much everywhere I went, this was the topic of discussion; that is, gas prices in our State. I know it hurts every American when gas prices go up because gasoline prices and diesel prices have a way of working their way through the entire economy and causing economic difficulties for this country. One of the things people pointed out to me is this roller coaster effect we have seen on gas prices over the last year or so. One thing my friends in Arkansas noticed is that the price there has gone up about 30 cents a gallon just in the last couple months. So it has been a very dramatic increase and it is something people are very concerned about. I wish to make three points about this. One is that I think the Congress--House and Senate--as well as the White House should look at this problem of speculation. When we look at the numbers, some are saying a fairly large percentage of the costs of a gallon of gas--some people say 20 cents a gallon and some people say 40 cents a gallon-- actually goes to the speculators. So what that means is a lot of these guys have no intention of ever taking the product and doing anything with it, other than just trading it, to try to profiteer in a volatile market. That is a big concern. We actually passed something 2 or 3 years ago to get the CFTC to issue some regulations on how to handle this, and now those apparently have been challenged in court. Of course, the people challenging this are the people who are benefiting from the speculation. So I think we need to find that balance. When we have a market, there are going to be speculators in the market and they are going to get out there and try to make some money in the marketplace. That is the nature of the business. Sometimes they win; sometimes they lose. That is legitimate. But I think there are people and companies, some invest billions and billions of dollars, but they are trying to profiteer off the volatile oil situation. So we need to focus on speculation. We also need to focus on the supply of oil in this country. The good news is we are seeing more and more acreage being drilled and permitted to be drilled in this country. After the terrible gulf spill a couple years ago, those permits are starting to be issued again down in the Gulf of Mexico, as I understand it. Also, I am a supporter of the Keystone Pipeline as well. We need to continue to develop our domestic supply, and even our near domestic supply in Canada, of oil. We also need to have diversity in our energy portfolio. There needs to be alternatives to gasoline and diesel. We need to find different ways to run our vehicles, whether it is natural gas or whatever it may be. It could be electricity. It could be lots of different products. We need to continue to innovate in this country and try to do great things. That brings me to my third point, which is the real reason why I am on the floor. Certainly, it touches on gas prices, and that is very important. We don't want to see gas prices slow down our economic recovery we are undergoing right now. We also need a more comprehensive and smarter national energy policy. I think an important first step toward that is for us to evaluate all the energy programs we happen to have on the books already--what the Department of Energy is doing, what other various departments are doing. Someone needs to be looking at all the tax credits and tax incentives when it comes to energy. We need a comprehensive analysis of where we are as a nation: what our strengths are, what our weaknesses are. What I am proposing is a bill, the Quadrennial Energy Review. It is a bill we have introduced, and I am fortunate enough to have Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy Committee, as well as Senator Murkowski, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, as cosponsors. We would love to have other Senators look at this, maybe relatively soon, because we would like to start moving this through the process, if at all possible. A quadrennial energy review is based on what they do at the Department of Defense. Every 4 years, the DOD goes through this very detailed, top-to-bottom analysis of all the things they need to consider in the Department of Defense, and they come out with the QDR-- the Quadrennial Defense Review. Basically, it looks at what we have and it presents a roadmap for where we need to go. That is what we need to do with energy. We already have this model that works. This idea would be more governmentwide--not just the Department of Energy but governmentwide. I encourage all my colleagues to look at this and if they wouldn't mind having their staff check back with my office because we would love to have other colleagues as cosponsors if they are interested. I don't think it is controversial. I don't think there is much money or much requirement involved. I think it is good government and smart government to come up with a comprehensive energy policy for our Nation. In Washington we hear the American people loudly and clearly. We are concerned about gas prices as well on lots of different levels and we will certainly be focused on that and paying a lot of attention to that issue over the next several weeks and, hopefully, we can do some good for the market and do some good for the American people. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize the work of Arkansas Children's Hospital, ACH, on the occasion of its centennial celebration. Founded in 1912, ACH has been at the forefront of pediatric medicine in Arkansas and across the Nation for the last century. Friends and supporters of ACH will gather on March 5, 2012, to celebrate 100 years of ACH history and care to the children of Arkansas, and I join with them in congratulating Arkansas Children's Hospital on its 100th birthday. Designed originally to serve as an orphanage for the underprivileged children in Arkansas, the Arkansas Children's Home Society was established on March 2, 1912, with a mission to provide and care for the neediest children in Arkansas. Dr. Orlando P. Christian became the first superintendent of the society and soon laid out a vision to build a children's hospital. Kicking off a fundraising campaign for the new hospital in 1919, Dr. Christian stirred attendees with a moving speech and concluded by asking, ``The question is no longer what shall we do, but how and when shall we begin our task?'' It took only 7 years for this goal to become a reality when the hospital opened on March 9, 1926, with only two beds but a fully equipped operating room. In the years following, Arkansas Children's Home and Hospital, as it was then known, would face various challenges and triumphs as it continued to add new facilities and services in support of its mission. When Dr. Christian retired in 1933, Mrs. Ruth Olive Beall became the new superintendent. Her 27-year tenure brought the facility through the difficulties of the Great Depression and World War II and saw the institution formally become Arkansas Children's Hospital. The Burn Center opened in 1953 and continues to be the only center of its kind in the State, treating over 2,000 adults and children every year. The Heart Center at ACH is one of the premier centers in the country. In 2011, doctors at the Heart Center performed an astonishing total of 31 heart transplants, bringing new life and hope to dozens of children and families. In an effort to expand medical care across the State, ACH added a helicopter to its transport services in 1985. Now, more than 1,200 children each year are brought safely to ACH through the Angel One transport helicopters. This addition had a significant impact on the State's infant mortality rate and continues to provide children across the State expanded access to the excellent medical care at Arkansas Children's Hospital. As they like to say, ``Arkansas Children's Hospital and Angel One are dedicated to providing Care, Love and Hope . . . at 180 miles per hour.'' With each passing year, ACH continues to reinvent itself and add vital services necessary for the care of its patients. This summer, the new South Wing will give ACH its largest expansion to date, with a brandnew ER, NICU, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, and multiple new clinic spaces. This wing will bring ACH to a total of 370 patient rooms. For a facility that started with only two beds, Dr. Christian would be proud of the century of progress made at Arkansas Children's Hospital. Mr. President, when the original orphanage was established in 1912, it had a simple mission: to provide and care for the neediest children in Arkansas. A century later, Arkansas Children's Hospital continues to hold fast to that mission and provide world-class care to every child, without regard to the family's ability to pay. I am proud of the work ACH and its staff does for the children in Arkansas and across our Nation. My State is truly blessed to have such great care, and I am excited to see the ways this institution will continue to expand in the years to come. I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Arkansas Children's Hospital on 100 years of service in Arkansas and in wishing ACH another 100 years of success.