Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, due to a prior family obligation, I was unavoidably absent for tonight's vote. I ask the Record show that had I been present for vote No. 198, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R.674.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that today I recognize the achievements of the McKee Foods Corporation plant in Gentry, AR. This plant reached the milestone of having zero landfill waste, a first for a McKee Foods production facility. In 1934, under the shadow of the Great Depression, the late O.D. and Ruth McKee converted a cookie shop into a 5-cent bakery in Chattanooga, TN. With O.D.'s aptitude for sales and Ruth's management abilities, the duo took their small mom-and-pop bakery and expanded into what is now known as McKee Foods Corporation. The expansion into Gentry came in 1982 when the company needed a larger facility to serve the western United States and Mexico. Among other things, the Gentry plant produces a variety of ``Little Debbie'' snack cakes, a favorite treat among my family and staff. It was 2 years ago that the Gentry plant management team challenged themselves and the more than 1,500 Gentry employees to reach a goal of zero landfill waste. Although seen as challenging, the entire plant knew this was achievable. Many recycling efforts were already under way, and the plant partnered with several local recycling companies to put processes in place to bring their landfill waste down to zero. For the Gentry plant, there will be no going back to the landfill. With responsibility as a guiding value, McKee Foods has been and will continue to be a strong advocate for environmentally conscious business practices. On average, McKee Foods recycles 3,750 tons of cardboard, 10,000 gallons of used petroleum oil, over 100,000 wooden pallets, and 200 tons of scrap steel and other metals. While the Gentry plant is setting the bar high for other McKee facilities, the entire McKee Foods Corporation is to be commended for its environmental stewardship. I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the McKee Foods Corporation's Gentry plant on attaining zero landfill waste. As the company motto adopted by O.D. McKee makes clear, McKee Foods is committed to ``finding a better way'' of doing business, and the Gentry plant is leading the way. I am proud of all they have accomplished and look forward to their future successes.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask that the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak in morning business, although I believe we are in the Republican time.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, in some ways, I hate to come to the floor and talk about this because I very seldom do, but I am announcing to all my colleagues and to the administration that I am putting a hold on all Treasury Department nominations until I get something resolved. Let me back up and tell the story. Some of my colleagues are familiar with this story because this has come up a few times before and I have already spoken on the floor a couple times about this and certainly in the Homeland Security Committee I have spoken about this. A few years ago, in Arkansas, we had some floods. In this one particular area around Mountain View, AR, some people's houses were flooded. FEMA came in. In one particular case--in the Guglielmanas case, which is a family there--they talked to this couple. They are on Social Security. They talked to this couple about how they are entitled to some FEMA recovery money to repair their home. FEMA was actually in the home, took pictures, helped them fill out the paperwork, walked them through the entire process, and they ended up getting $27,000 in FEMA money for disaster recovery. The Guglielmanas did everything absolutely by the book. They followed all of FEMA's directions. They did it picture perfect, exactly the way we would think all citizens should conduct their business. Then, 3 years later, they got a notice in the mail and FEMA said: Oh, we messed up. We shouldn't have given you that money because of some technical reason and because of that we now want all that money back. They worked a great hardship on this family. This is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is not what has happened in this case. This has worked a great hardship on this family. There are lots of community efforts around these floods: local civic clubs, churches, the community at large rolled out to help people. The Guglielmanas said they didn't need that because they had FEMA's help. So they have foregone a lot of local assistance, a lot of charity assistance, general help from their friends and neighbors because of FEMA. Now FEMA has come back and said they owe them the entire $27,000. This could ruin them financially. I have met with FEMA Director Fugate. He and I have had what I would think of as productive conversations, although this matter hasn't been resolved. One of the things we talked about is to get an amendment to the existing statute. We are working on that. We are working that bill through the system right now in the Senate. I have worked with colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee and also the Appropriations Committee. I am not saying we would have unanimous agreement on my approach, but certainly I have been trying to work with anybody in the Senate to make this bill better. Unfortunately, what has happened in the last few days is FEMA has now taken the additional step of turning this matter over to the Department of Treasury for debt collection. To add insult to injury and to rub salt in the wounds, this $27,000 debt, now with fines and penalties and interest, has gone to $37,000--$37,000 in debt after these folks were assured by the government they were completely entitled to because this was flood recovery; and the only reason they are not entitled to it is because of some technical issues that FEMA should have recognized from day one. They should have never offered to help these people, but what they have done is, they have now caused them great injury. This is a matter of equity and fairness. Enough is enough. We have been talking to FEMA for months about this. Now Treasury is involved. Enough is enough. We need to get this resolved for this family and maybe a few others. It is not just localized in Arkansas. We are going to see this happen over and over around the country because FEMA has a backlog of these cases--it is a long story--that got tied up in litigation for a few years and I can almost guarantee that virtually every Senator in this Chamber at some point is going to have to deal with this. I hope all will listen to what I am saying and, hopefully, help me get this resolved. But that is why I am putting a hold on all the Treasury nominees. We need to get this resolved, and we are going to do whatever it takes to get it resolved. We want to resolve this situation fairly for this family in Arkansas. Again, they are just the first of many whom we are going to see who have this same type problem. FEMA has done them harm. Our government has done them harm and put them at a disadvantage. There is a principle in law called detrimental reliance. These people clearly relied on the government and relied on FEMA to their detriment and they are paying the price and the penalty for that now. When the IRS and Treasury gets involved, there are penalties and interest. American citizens should not be treated this way, especially those who are playing by the rules and don't have any other recourse. That is all I wanted to say in my morning business--I see we have several in the Chamber to talk on other matters--that I am putting Treasury on notice that I am going to hold all their nominees until we sit down and work through this and, hopefully, get a good and fair result for this one family in Arkansas. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I see that I have other colleagues on the floor. I will only be a couple of minutes. Today I rise to oppose an amendment offered by Senator Moran, amendment No. 815. I really do appreciate the intent of Senator Moran's amendment. I actually support the intent of what he is trying to do because he is trying to support the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. While I am not opposed to that program, and I recognize that difficult decisions had to be made in order to meet our statutory spending caps outlined in the Budget Control Act, I regret to say I cannot support the Senator's amendment as it is written because its offset comes from departmental administration which provides numerous essential services to the USDA. These cuts would force USDA to reduce their number of employees, which would have a detrimental effect on the Department and its operation. In fact, Secretary Vilsack reached out to the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee staff to relay his serious concerns. These USDA employees provide essential services to some of the most rural areas in the country, so I cannot support the amendment that would, in effect, reduce services to rural America. On top of that, it is important for my colleagues to understand that the level for departmental administration is already over $13 million below the fiscal year 2010 level and $7 million below the President's request. Although I definitely support the watershed rehabilitation program, I certainly hope Senator Kohl and Senator Moran can find a good offset that is agreeable to the majority of us. Still, I must oppose this amendment and urge other Senators to oppose it as well. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Begich, Coons, Tester and Burr to introduce the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011. One of the big gaps in federal energy policy is the lack of an overarching vision and coordination among federal agencies to define how the United States produces and uses energy. Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America's independence from oil. We also need to make sure that our nation has a 21st century electric grid that matches supply with demand. If we want to create a more secure energy future for America then we need to develop a national energy plan that coordinates and integrates the energy policies of the various federal agencies. The development of such a policy would enhance our energy security, create jobs and mitigate environmental harm. In the fall of 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu asked the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, to review the energy technology innovation system to identify and recommend ways to accelerate the large scale transformation of energy production, delivery, and use to a low carbon energy system. In response, PCAST formed a working group and in 2010 issued its ``Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy''. PCAST's most important recommendation is that the Administration establish a new process that can forge a more coordinated and robust Federal energy policy, a major piece of which is advancing energy innovation. The report recommends-- The President should establish a Quadrennial Energy Review, QER, process that will provide a multiyear roadmap that lays out an integrated view of short-, intermediate-, and long- term energy objectives; outlines legislative proposals to Congress; puts forward anticipated Executive actions coordinated across multiple agencies; and identifies resource requirements for the development and implementation of energy technologies. Last month, the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) released a report, Catalyzing American Ingenuity (http:// www.americanenergyinnovation .org/2011-report/), which noted: The nation needs a robust National Energy Plan to serve as a strategic technology and policy roadmap . . . [to] ``provide a clear, integrated road map with short-, intermediate-, and long-term objectives for federal energy policies and technology programs, along with a structured, time-bound plan to get there. We support DOE's Quadrennial Technology Review, QTR, which we see as an important and meaningful first step toward developing a national energy strategy. The federal government should build on the QTR and move quickly toward a government-wide QER. AEIC is a group of prominent business leaders who came together last year to call for a more vigorous public and private sector commitment to energy technology innovation. AEIC members include: Norm Augustine, former chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin; Ursula Burns, chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox; John Doerr, partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Bill Gates, chairman and former chief executive officer of Microsoft; Charles O. Holliday, chairman of Bank of America and former chairman and chief executive officer of DuPont; Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of GE; and Tim Solso, chairman and chief executive officer of Cummins Inc. A Quadrennial Energy Review could establish government-wide energy goals, coordinate actions across agencies, and lead to the development of a national energy policy. As the lead agency in support of energy science and technology innovation, the Department of Energy has taken the first step to developing a national energy plan by conducting a Quadrennial Technology Review of the energy technology policies and programs of the Department. The QTR serves as the basis for DOE's coordination with other agencies and on other programs for which the Department has a key role. The next step is to build upon DOE's report and perform a Quadrennial Energy Review that would establish government-wide energy objectives, coordinate actions across Federal agencies, and provide a strong analytical base for Federal energy policy decisions. Our bill, the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011, would authorize the President to establish an Interagency Working Group to submit a Quadrennial Energy Review to Congress by February 1, 2014, and every 4 years thereafter. The Group would be co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, and consist of level I or II Executive Schedule members representing the Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Interior, Agriculture, Treasury, and Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal organizations, departments and agencies that the President considers to be appropriate. The bill lists what information, at a minimum, shall be reported in the Quadrennial Energy Review and requires the Secretary of Energy to provide the Executive Secretariat and for agency heads to cooperate with the Secretary. We live in a global world with global demands on energy. The country that best manages its energy resources will lead the 21st century and provide its people a secure energy future. The U.S. needs to win the energy race and this bill will help the United States remain that country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague for being here today and expressing his support for Susan Hickey to be a new Federal district court judge in the Western District of Arkansas. She has a strong record in our State. She is exactly what we need in a Federal judge. The fact that we have both home State Senators, one Democrat and one Republican, supportive of the nomination begins to speak volumes about the kind of person and the kind of reputation Susan Hickey has. She has been in both the public sector and private sector. She has worked inhouse with an oil company, as Senator Boozman said. But she has also law-clerked for a very solid and well-respected Federal judge. She is now a State court judge in Arkansas at the State trial court level. She has handled 313 felony criminal cases since she has been on the bench. She brings a lot of experience, and she is exactly the kind of person we need to be on the Federal bench. When I look at a judge candidate, a judge nominee, I always have three sets of criteria: One, are they qualified? Certainly, she is. She brings very strong qualifications and experience to this position. Second, can she be fair and impartial? I think that is something that comes up with Susan Hickey over and over and over. From her local bar down in south Arkansas, from the people in the community, the folks who have dealt with her, they all say she is an extremely fair person, and they have no doubt she will be impartial as she puts on that Federal district court robe. Then, my third criterion, does she have the proper judicial temperament? That, obviously, is subjective because that comes down to their personality and their style. But we want a Federal judge who has great demeanor, who is very good with the law, but also very good with lawyers because, obviously, in a trial court they have a lot of type A personalities in the court, and they have to give the proper appearance to the jury. That is critically important for a district court judge. So I would say, absolutely, yes, she has the right judicial temperament. So I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues to vote favorably for Susan Hickey. Like I said, she has handled 1,690 total matters in the Federal courts since she has been a law clerk there. Mr. President, 313 total felony cases have been disposed of in her trial court in south Arkansas down in El Dorado. She has a lot of very solid legal experience. The bottom line is, she is just a good person, and people like her and respect her and they trust her. I think when our Founding Fathers put together the Federal judiciary, this was the kind of person they wanted. She reflects the values and the attitudes of that part of the State. She is smart. She is hard working. She is going to be fair. Really, we could not ask a whole lot more for any Federal judge in any district, and, certainly, she is going to do a great job down there. So I am proud to be joined by my friend and colleague from Arkansas to support this nomination. If we support her, and if we confirm her today, we will be joining thousands and thousands of people in south Arkansas who have supported her. We have had hundreds, I know, express support for her in my office. I am certain Senator Boozman has had many support her in his office as well. I encourage my colleagues to give her very strong consideration. She has been rated unanimously ``qualified'' by the American Bar Association. There, again, in that both home State Senators support her, the American Bar Association supports her, the Arkansas bar--not the association because they do not do those types of endorsements--but every lawyer I have talked to who knows Susan Hickey thinks she will do an outstanding job, I would like to ask my colleagues to vote for her nomination and I appreciate their consideration. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Begich, Coons, Tester and Burr to introduce the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011. One of the big gaps in federal energy policy is the lack of an overarching vision and coordination among federal agencies to define how the United States produces and uses energy. Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America's independence from oil. We also need to make sure that our nation has a 21st century electric grid that matches supply with demand. If we want to create a more secure energy future for America then we need to develop a national energy plan that coordinates and integrates the energy policies of the various federal agencies. The development of such a policy would enhance our energy security, create jobs and mitigate environmental harm. In the fall of 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu asked the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, to review the energy technology innovation system to identify and recommend ways to accelerate the large scale transformation of energy production, delivery, and use to a low carbon energy system. In response, PCAST formed a working group and in 2010 issued its ``Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy''. PCAST's most important recommendation is that the Administration establish a new process that can forge a more coordinated and robust Federal energy policy, a major piece of which is advancing energy innovation. The report recommends-- The President should establish a Quadrennial Energy Review, QER, process that will provide a multiyear roadmap that lays out an integrated view of short-, intermediate-, and long- term energy objectives; outlines legislative proposals to Congress; puts forward anticipated Executive actions coordinated across multiple agencies; and identifies resource requirements for the development and implementation of energy technologies. Last month, the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) released a report, Catalyzing American Ingenuity (http:// www.americanenergyinnovation .org/2011-report/), which noted: The nation needs a robust National Energy Plan to serve as a strategic technology and policy roadmap . . . [to] ``provide a clear, integrated road map with short-, intermediate-, and long-term objectives for federal energy policies and technology programs, along with a structured, time-bound plan to get there. We support DOE's Quadrennial Technology Review, QTR, which we see as an important and meaningful first step toward developing a national energy strategy. The federal government should build on the QTR and move quickly toward a government-wide QER. AEIC is a group of prominent business leaders who came together last year to call for a more vigorous public and private sector commitment to energy technology innovation. AEIC members include: Norm Augustine, former chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin; Ursula Burns, chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox; John Doerr, partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Bill Gates, chairman and former chief executive officer of Microsoft; Charles O. Holliday, chairman of Bank of America and former chairman and chief executive officer of DuPont; Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of GE; and Tim Solso, chairman and chief executive officer of Cummins Inc. A Quadrennial Energy Review could establish government-wide energy goals, coordinate actions across agencies, and lead to the development of a national energy policy. As the lead agency in support of energy science and technology innovation, the Department of Energy has taken the first step to developing a national energy plan by conducting a Quadrennial Technology Review of the energy technology policies and programs of the Department. The QTR serves as the basis for DOE's coordination with other agencies and on other programs for which the Department has a key role. The next step is to build upon DOE's report and perform a Quadrennial Energy Review that would establish government-wide energy objectives, coordinate actions across Federal agencies, and provide a strong analytical base for Federal energy policy decisions. Our bill, the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011, would authorize the President to establish an Interagency Working Group to submit a Quadrennial Energy Review to Congress by February 1, 2014, and every 4 years thereafter. The Group would be co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, and consist of level I or II Executive Schedule members representing the Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Interior, Agriculture, Treasury, and Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal organizations, departments and agencies that the President considers to be appropriate. The bill lists what information, at a minimum, shall be reported in the Quadrennial Energy Review and requires the Secretary of Energy to provide the Executive Secretariat and for agency heads to cooperate with the Secretary. We live in a global world with global demands on energy. The country that best manages its energy resources will lead the 21st century and provide its people a secure energy future. The U.S. needs to win the energy race and this bill will help the United States remain that country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cardin to introduce the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 which will authorize a program of regulatory science by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on nanotechnology-based medical and health products. Nanotechnology holds great promise to revolutionize the development of new medicines, drug delivery, and orthopedic implants while holding down the cost of health care. However, Congress and the FDA must assure the public that nanotechnology-based products are both safe and efficacious. The Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 will enable the FDA to properly study how nanomaterials are absorbed by the human body, how nanomaterials designed to carry cancer fighting drugs target and kill tumors, and how nanoscale texturing of bone implants can make a stronger joint and reduce the threat of infection. Nanotechnology, or the manipulation of material at dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers, is a challenging scientific area. To put this size scale in perspective, a human hair is 80,000 nanometers thick. Nanomaterials have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics than when used as larger, bulk materials. For example, nanoscale silver has exhibited unique antibacterial properties for treating infections and wounds. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more reactive than bulk materials. The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and public safety of products based on nanotechnology. The FDA needs the tools and resources to assure the public that nanotechnology-based medical and health products are safe and effective. The development of a regulatory framework for the use of nanomaterials in drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, sunscreens and food additives must be based on scientific knowledge and data about each specific technology and product. Without a robust regulatory science framework there is no way to know what data to collect. More than a dozen material characteristics have been suggested even for relatively simple nanomaterials. Without better scientific knowledge of nanomaterials and their behavior in the human body, we do not know what data to collect and examine. In 2007, the FDA Nanotechnology Task Force published a report analyzing the FDA's scientific program and regulatory authority for addressing nanotechnology in drugs, medical devices, biologics, and food supplements. A general finding of the report is that nanoscale materials present regulatory challenges similar to those posed by products using other emerging technologies. However, these challenges may be magnified because nanotechnology can be used to make almost any FDA-regulated product. Also, at the nanoscale, the properties of a material relevant to the safety and effectiveness of the FDA-regulated products might change. The Task Force recommended that the FDA focus on improving its scientific knowledge of nanotechnology to help ensure the agency's regulatory effectiveness, particularly with regard to products not subject to premarket authorization requirements. The FDA has already reviewed and approved some nanotechnology-based products. In the coming years, they expect a significant increase in the use of nanomaterials in drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, food, and over-the-counter products. This will require the FDA to devote more of its regulatory attention to nanotechnology based products. The FDA has already begun to devote some resources to the understanding of the human health effects and safety of nanotechnology. The FDA has established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson Arkansas. In August, Arkansas Governor Beebe and FDA Commissioner Hamburg signed a memorandum understanding creating a Virtual Center of Excellence in regulatory science pertaining to nanotechnology. Under the agreement, the state's five research universities--the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and Arkansas State University--will work with the NCTR to establish a nanotechnology collaborative research program dealing specifically with toxicity. In addition, UAMS will offer a Master's degree and a certification program in regulatory science. Let me talk for a few minutes about two areas where nanotechnology is already being applied to health care, the early detection of cancer and multifunctional therapeutics. The early detection of cancer can result in significant improvement in human health care and reduction in cost. Nanotechnology offers important new tools for detection where existing and more conventional technologies may be reaching their limits. The present obstacle to early detection of cancer lies in the inability of existing tools to detect these molecular level changes directly during early phases in the genesis of a cancer. Nanotechnology can provide smart contrast agents and tools for real time imaging of a single cell and tissues at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology promises a host of minimally-invasive diagnostic techniques and much research is aimed at ultra-sensitive labeling and detection technologies. In the in vitro area, nanotechnology can help define cancers by molecular signatures denoting processes that reflect fundamental changes in cells and tissues that lead to cancer. Already, investigators have developed novel nanoscale in vitro techniques that can analyze genomic variations across different tumor types and distinguish normal from malignant cells. In the in vivo area, one of the most pressing needs in clinical oncology is for imaging agents that can identify tumors that are far smaller than is possible with today's technology. Achieving this level of sensitivity requires better targeting of imaging agents and generation of a larger imaging signal, both of which nanoscale devices are capable of accomplishing. Perhaps the greatest near-term impact of multifunctional therapeutic compounds will come in the area of tumor targeting and cancer therapies. Nanotechnology can be used to develop new methods of drug delivery that better target selected tissues and cells, and to improve on the efficiency of drug activity in the cytoplasm or nucleus. Drug delivery applications will provide a solution to solubility problems, as well as offer intracellular delivery possibilities. The introduction of nanotechnology to multifunctional therapeutics is at an early stage of development. The delivery of nanoscale multifunctional therapeutics could permit very precise site specific targeting of cancer cells. More sophisticated ``smart'' systems for drug delivery still have to be developed that sense and respond to specific chemical agents and are tailored to each patient. Multifunctional therapeutic devices need to be developed that simultaneously detect, diagnose, treat and monitor response to the therapy. For example, various nanomaterials can be made to link with a drug, a targeting molecule and an imaging agent to seek out cancers and release their payload when required. In conclusion, the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 will provide the FDA the authority necessary to scientifically study the safety and effectiveness of nanotechnology-based drugs, delivery systems, medical devices, orthopedic implants, cosmetics, and food additives regulated by the agency. This bill is a sound investment on the promise of nanotechnology to improve human health and reduce costs in the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cardin to introduce the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 which will authorize a program of regulatory science by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on nanotechnology-based medical and health products. Nanotechnology holds great promise to revolutionize the development of new medicines, drug delivery, and orthopedic implants while holding down the cost of health care. However, Congress and the FDA must assure the public that nanotechnology-based products are both safe and efficacious. The Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 will enable the FDA to properly study how nanomaterials are absorbed by the human body, how nanomaterials designed to carry cancer fighting drugs target and kill tumors, and how nanoscale texturing of bone implants can make a stronger joint and reduce the threat of infection. Nanotechnology, or the manipulation of material at dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers, is a challenging scientific area. To put this size scale in perspective, a human hair is 80,000 nanometers thick. Nanomaterials have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics than when used as larger, bulk materials. For example, nanoscale silver has exhibited unique antibacterial properties for treating infections and wounds. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more reactive than bulk materials. The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and public safety of products based on nanotechnology. The FDA needs the tools and resources to assure the public that nanotechnology-based medical and health products are safe and effective. The development of a regulatory framework for the use of nanomaterials in drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, sunscreens and food additives must be based on scientific knowledge and data about each specific technology and product. Without a robust regulatory science framework there is no way to know what data to collect. More than a dozen material characteristics have been suggested even for relatively simple nanomaterials. Without better scientific knowledge of nanomaterials and their behavior in the human body, we do not know what data to collect and examine. In 2007, the FDA Nanotechnology Task Force published a report analyzing the FDA's scientific program and regulatory authority for addressing nanotechnology in drugs, medical devices, biologics, and food supplements. A general finding of the report is that nanoscale materials present regulatory challenges similar to those posed by products using other emerging technologies. However, these challenges may be magnified because nanotechnology can be used to make almost any FDA-regulated product. Also, at the nanoscale, the properties of a material relevant to the safety and effectiveness of the FDA-regulated products might change. The Task Force recommended that the FDA focus on improving its scientific knowledge of nanotechnology to help ensure the agency's regulatory effectiveness, particularly with regard to products not subject to premarket authorization requirements. The FDA has already reviewed and approved some nanotechnology-based products. In the coming years, they expect a significant increase in the use of nanomaterials in drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, food, and over-the-counter products. This will require the FDA to devote more of its regulatory attention to nanotechnology based products. The FDA has already begun to devote some resources to the understanding of the human health effects and safety of nanotechnology. The FDA has established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson Arkansas. In August, Arkansas Governor Beebe and FDA Commissioner Hamburg signed a memorandum understanding creating a Virtual Center of Excellence in regulatory science pertaining to nanotechnology. Under the agreement, the state's five research universities--the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and Arkansas State University--will work with the NCTR to establish a nanotechnology collaborative research program dealing specifically with toxicity. In addition, UAMS will offer a Master's degree and a certification program in regulatory science. Let me talk for a few minutes about two areas where nanotechnology is already being applied to health care, the early detection of cancer and multifunctional therapeutics. The early detection of cancer can result in significant improvement in human health care and reduction in cost. Nanotechnology offers important new tools for detection where existing and more conventional technologies may be reaching their limits. The present obstacle to early detection of cancer lies in the inability of existing tools to detect these molecular level changes directly during early phases in the genesis of a cancer. Nanotechnology can provide smart contrast agents and tools for real time imaging of a single cell and tissues at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology promises a host of minimally-invasive diagnostic techniques and much research is aimed at ultra-sensitive labeling and detection technologies. In the in vitro area, nanotechnology can help define cancers by molecular signatures denoting processes that reflect fundamental changes in cells and tissues that lead to cancer. Already, investigators have developed novel nanoscale in vitro techniques that can analyze genomic variations across different tumor types and distinguish normal from malignant cells. In the in vivo area, one of the most pressing needs in clinical oncology is for imaging agents that can identify tumors that are far smaller than is possible with today's technology. Achieving this level of sensitivity requires better targeting of imaging agents and generation of a larger imaging signal, both of which nanoscale devices are capable of accomplishing. Perhaps the greatest near-term impact of multifunctional therapeutic compounds will come in the area of tumor targeting and cancer therapies. Nanotechnology can be used to develop new methods of drug delivery that better target selected tissues and cells, and to improve on the efficiency of drug activity in the cytoplasm or nucleus. Drug delivery applications will provide a solution to solubility problems, as well as offer intracellular delivery possibilities. The introduction of nanotechnology to multifunctional therapeutics is at an early stage of development. The delivery of nanoscale multifunctional therapeutics could permit very precise site specific targeting of cancer cells. More sophisticated ``smart'' systems for drug delivery still have to be developed that sense and respond to specific chemical agents and are tailored to each patient. Multifunctional therapeutic devices need to be developed that simultaneously detect, diagnose, treat and monitor response to the therapy. For example, various nanomaterials can be made to link with a drug, a targeting molecule and an imaging agent to seek out cancers and release their payload when required. In conclusion, the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 will provide the FDA the authority necessary to scientifically study the safety and effectiveness of nanotechnology-based drugs, delivery systems, medical devices, orthopedic implants, cosmetics, and food additives regulated by the agency. This bill is a sound investment on the promise of nanotechnology to improve human health and reduce costs in the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 5 or 10 minutes, and my understanding is we may still be in the Republican time, but they have allowed me to speak now. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 1606 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have heard from many Arkansans and businesses, particularly small businesses, which are struggling to meet an increasing regulatory burden. Each year, Federal agencies issue more than 3,000 final rules, many of which have significant economic impact. In Executive Order 13563, President Obama emphasized that our regulatory system should promote ``economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.'' I agree. We need a 21st-century regulatory system that promotes future prosperity. However, there are some rules where that goal appears to have been ignored and as a result our economy suffers. Experience suggests that improvements in the regulatory process are necessary to ensure that all agencies pay close attention to the impact their regulatory actions have on jobs and on the economy. For example, the EPA is currently considering more stringent regulations of dust as part of the national ambient air quality. From county roads to farm fields, dust is an unavoidable reality in rural areas. Imposing strict dust regulations on these communities would hurt family farmers and rural economies across Arkansas and our Nation. Another example comes from a county judge in Arkansas. He was rightly concerned about a regulation stemming from the Bush administration that would have cost municipalities and counties and States across the country tens of millions of dollars to replace their street signs. The burden of paying for hundreds of thousands of new signs at costs ranging anywhere from $30 to $110 would have fallen to State and local governments, and that means State and local taxpayers. Fortunately, as part of the administration's review of regulations, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has decided that a specific deadline for replacing street signs makes no sense and that local and State transportation agencies are best equipped to determine when they need to replace these signs in the course of their daily work. In his Executive order, President Obama remarked that the regulatory system ``must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.'' Last month, Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Cabinet Secretaries were instructed to minimize regulatory costs, avoid imposing excessive regulatory burdens, and prioritize regulatory actions that promote economic growth and job creation. I applaud the administration's new directive. One difference in what the administration is doing versus what we are doing in the Portman-Pryor legislation is that the President is looking retrospectively. He is doing a review of regulations that are on the books now, which is good. I welcome that. But the Portman-Pryor legislation will be prospective; it will go forward. We will talk about that more as we go. I think it is time that Congress reviewed several of the laws that form the basis of our Federal regulatory system. We need to find ways to make these laws more fair, reasonable, and effective in meeting the dual challenges of protecting the public while making our economy stronger and more competitive. That is why I have teamed up with Senator Portman on this important legislation. Done right, I believe regulatory reform can lead to better, cheaper, and faster rulemaking. Specifically, agencies should, one, propose or adopt regulations only when the benefits justify the costs; two, write regulations so that they impose the least burden on society; and three, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those that strike the right balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. Portman-Pryor amends the Administrative Procedures Act to place greater emphasis on early engagement between agencies and parties subject to high-impact rules costing $1 billion or more per year and major rules costing $100 million or more. These expensive rules are where our focus should be. In fact, as a historical footnote, the Administrative Procedures Act was written in 1946 and has not really been revised and updated since that time. So now that it is 65 years old, I think it is time to look at it and update it. Portman-Pryor makes better use of two existing regulatory tools. It requires an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for high-impact and major rules to enable agencies to solicit written data, views, or arguments from interested parties. Second, although the Administrative Procedures Act already allows for formal hearings, agencies rarely use this option. Portman-Pryor requires an agency to conduct a formal rulemaking hearing for high-impact rules and, in some cases, major rules so that data and information can be debated on the record--here again, on the record. We are trying to make this process more transparent. Portman-Pryor strikes a balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. The bill makes clear that the agencies are encouraged to choose the least costly alternative that would achieve the objectives of the statute authorizing the rule. However, the bill also makes clear that the agency may choose--may choose--a more costly rule so long as it does two things: one, explains why it has done so based on policy concerns addressed by the statute authorizing the rule and, two, shows that the added benefits are greater than the added costs, which is by definition a push toward ``maximizing benefits.'' Today, the length of rulemaking varies widely from a few months to several years. After this reform, times will still vary in about that same amount, but the final rules should be more stable and more credible. A principal goal of Portman-Pryor is that the bill may shorten the rulemaking process because the final rule will be based on more sound, thorough information and that fewer high-impact and major rules will be vacated by courts and sent back to the agency. Finally, the bill reinforces that agencies must assess both the costs and benefits of their rules. However, the bill requires the Administrator of OIRA to establish guidelines so that costs-benefit analysis can be commensurate with the economic impact of the rule. Regulatory reform is not an exciting subject, I know, but it is vitally important to our Nation's economic recovery. I look forward to working with Senator Portman on this important legislation. I also look forward to working with other colleagues to try to get them interested and possibly cosponsoring and helping us get this bill through the process. My final point is that this is a piece of legislation which not only is bipartisan but is bicameral. We have two Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have announced this legislation with us today: Lamar Smith, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Collin Peterson, who is the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee in the House. So it is rare when we get bipartisan, bicameral legislation coming in this Congress. I hope--I sincerely hope--I will have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who will look at this legislation. I hope we will get broad bipartisan support and we will be able to move it through the committees and get it to the floor in a timely fashion.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have heard from many Arkansans and businesses, particularly small businesses, which are struggling to meet an increasing regulatory burden. Each year, Federal agencies issue more than 3,000 final rules, many of which have significant economic impact. In Executive Order 13563, President Obama emphasized that our regulatory system should promote ``economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.'' I agree. We need a 21st-century regulatory system that promotes future prosperity. However, there are some rules where that goal appears to have been ignored and as a result our economy suffers. Experience suggests that improvements in the regulatory process are necessary to ensure that all agencies pay close attention to the impact their regulatory actions have on jobs and on the economy. For example, the EPA is currently considering more stringent regulations of dust as part of the national ambient air quality. From county roads to farm fields, dust is an unavoidable reality in rural areas. Imposing strict dust regulations on these communities would hurt family farmers and rural economies across Arkansas and our Nation. Another example comes from a county judge in Arkansas. He was rightly concerned about a regulation stemming from the Bush administration that would have cost municipalities and counties and States across the country tens of millions of dollars to replace their street signs. The burden of paying for hundreds of thousands of new signs at costs ranging anywhere from $30 to $110 would have fallen to State and local governments, and that means State and local taxpayers. Fortunately, as part of the administration's review of regulations, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has decided that a specific deadline for replacing street signs makes no sense and that local and State transportation agencies are best equipped to determine when they need to replace these signs in the course of their daily work. In his Executive order, President Obama remarked that the regulatory system ``must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.'' Last month, Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Cabinet Secretaries were instructed to minimize regulatory costs, avoid imposing excessive regulatory burdens, and prioritize regulatory actions that promote economic growth and job creation. I applaud the administration's new directive. One difference in what the administration is doing versus what we are doing in the Portman-Pryor legislation is that the President is looking retrospectively. He is doing a review of regulations that are on the books now, which is good. I welcome that. But the Portman-Pryor legislation will be prospective; it will go forward. We will talk about that more as we go. I think it is time that Congress reviewed several of the laws that form the basis of our Federal regulatory system. We need to find ways to make these laws more fair, reasonable, and effective in meeting the dual challenges of protecting the public while making our economy stronger and more competitive. That is why I have teamed up with Senator Portman on this important legislation. Done right, I believe regulatory reform can lead to better, cheaper, and faster rulemaking. Specifically, agencies should, one, propose or adopt regulations only when the benefits justify the costs; two, write regulations so that they impose the least burden on society; and three, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those that strike the right balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. Portman-Pryor amends the Administrative Procedures Act to place greater emphasis on early engagement between agencies and parties subject to high-impact rules costing $1 billion or more per year and major rules costing $100 million or more. These expensive rules are where our focus should be. In fact, as a historical footnote, the Administrative Procedures Act was written in 1946 and has not really been revised and updated since that time. So now that it is 65 years old, I think it is time to look at it and update it. Portman-Pryor makes better use of two existing regulatory tools. It requires an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for high-impact and major rules to enable agencies to solicit written data, views, or arguments from interested parties. Second, although the Administrative Procedures Act already allows for formal hearings, agencies rarely use this option. Portman-Pryor requires an agency to conduct a formal rulemaking hearing for high-impact rules and, in some cases, major rules so that data and information can be debated on the record--here again, on the record. We are trying to make this process more transparent. Portman-Pryor strikes a balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. The bill makes clear that the agencies are encouraged to choose the least costly alternative that would achieve the objectives of the statute authorizing the rule. However, the bill also makes clear that the agency may choose--may choose--a more costly rule so long as it does two things: one, explains why it has done so based on policy concerns addressed by the statute authorizing the rule and, two, shows that the added benefits are greater than the added costs, which is by definition a push toward ``maximizing benefits.'' Today, the length of rulemaking varies widely from a few months to several years. After this reform, times will still vary in about that same amount, but the final rules should be more stable and more credible. A principal goal of Portman-Pryor is that the bill may shorten the rulemaking process because the final rule will be based on more sound, thorough information and that fewer high-impact and major rules will be vacated by courts and sent back to the agency. Finally, the bill reinforces that agencies must assess both the costs and benefits of their rules. However, the bill requires the Administrator of OIRA to establish guidelines so that costs-benefit analysis can be commensurate with the economic impact of the rule. Regulatory reform is not an exciting subject, I know, but it is vitally important to our Nation's economic recovery. I look forward to working with Senator Portman on this important legislation. I also look forward to working with other colleagues to try to get them interested and possibly cosponsoring and helping us get this bill through the process. My final point is that this is a piece of legislation which not only is bipartisan but is bicameral. We have two Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have announced this legislation with us today: Lamar Smith, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Collin Peterson, who is the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee in the House. So it is rare when we get bipartisan, bicameral legislation coming in this Congress. I hope--I sincerely hope--I will have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who will look at this legislation. I hope we will get broad bipartisan support and we will be able to move it through the committees and get it to the floor in a timely fashion.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Tom Udall to introduce the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2011. Recently, the United States Council for International Business, which represents America's top global companies, joined with an array of leading U.S. business groups in urging ramped-up efforts to promote U.S. clean energy exports. Global demand, particularly in rapidly-growing markets such as Brazil, China, India and Russia, will be especially critical in expanding America's clean energy technology industries and driving U.S. leadership of a 21st Century clean energy economy. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. trade deficit with China in clean energy products more than doubled from 2008 to 2010 and was estimated to cost more than 8,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration to establish a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Program to ensure that United States clean energy technology firms, including clean energy technology parts suppliers and engineering and design firms, have the information and assistance they need to be competitive and create clean energy technology sector jobs in the United States. The Commerce Department is the leading agency to promote clean energy exports for the President's newly established Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee within his National Export Initiative. Specifically, the bill requires the International Trade Administration to assist U.S. Clean Tech firms with export assistance to help them navigate foreign markets to export their goods and services abroad, enhance U.S. Clean Tech Manufacturing firms by requiring ITA to promote policies that will reduce production costs and encourage innovation, investment, and productivity in the clean energy technology sector, and to develop and implement a National Clean Energy Technology Export Strategy. Arkansas is becoming a national leader in clean energy technology. Several companies--LM Windpower, Nordex, and Mitsubishi Power Systems-- have established wind turbine manufacturing plants in Arkansas. Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc. is a small business dedicated to developing and marketing state-of-the-art technology in power electronics systems, electronic motor drives, and power electronics packaging. BlueInGreen, a Fayetteville company, makes energy efficient products to improve and maintain water quality. Silicon Solar Solutions, an Arkansas-based startup, is commercializing its large grain polysilicon technology company. All of these companies will benefit by having a focused clean energy trade and export program established within the International Trade Administration.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Tom Udall to introduce the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2011. Recently, the United States Council for International Business, which represents America's top global companies, joined with an array of leading U.S. business groups in urging ramped-up efforts to promote U.S. clean energy exports. Global demand, particularly in rapidly-growing markets such as Brazil, China, India and Russia, will be especially critical in expanding America's clean energy technology industries and driving U.S. leadership of a 21st Century clean energy economy. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. trade deficit with China in clean energy products more than doubled from 2008 to 2010 and was estimated to cost more than 8,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration to establish a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Program to ensure that United States clean energy technology firms, including clean energy technology parts suppliers and engineering and design firms, have the information and assistance they need to be competitive and create clean energy technology sector jobs in the United States. The Commerce Department is the leading agency to promote clean energy exports for the President's newly established Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee within his National Export Initiative. Specifically, the bill requires the International Trade Administration to assist U.S. Clean Tech firms with export assistance to help them navigate foreign markets to export their goods and services abroad, enhance U.S. Clean Tech Manufacturing firms by requiring ITA to promote policies that will reduce production costs and encourage innovation, investment, and productivity in the clean energy technology sector, and to develop and implement a National Clean Energy Technology Export Strategy. Arkansas is becoming a national leader in clean energy technology. Several companies--LM Windpower, Nordex, and Mitsubishi Power Systems-- have established wind turbine manufacturing plants in Arkansas. Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc. is a small business dedicated to developing and marketing state-of-the-art technology in power electronics systems, electronic motor drives, and power electronics packaging. BlueInGreen, a Fayetteville company, makes energy efficient products to improve and maintain water quality. Silicon Solar Solutions, an Arkansas-based startup, is commercializing its large grain polysilicon technology company. All of these companies will benefit by having a focused clean energy trade and export program established within the International Trade Administration.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank my colleague for that explanation. Section 18

Mr. PRYOR. I would like to ask my colleague from Vermont, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and lead sponsor of the America Invents Act before us today, to further clarify an issue relating to Section 18 of that legislation. Ideally, I would have liked to modify the Section 18 process in accordance with the Cantwell amendment. It is of crucial importance to me that we clarify the intent of the process and implement it as narrowly as possible. As I understand it, Section 18 is intended to enable the PTO to weed out improperly issued patents for abstract methods of doing business. Conversely, I understand that Section 18 is not intended to allow owners of valid patents to be harassed or subjected to the substantial cost and uncertainty of the untested review process established therein. Yet I have heard concerns that Section 18 would allow just such harassment because it enables review of patents whose claims have been found valid both through previous reexaminations by the PTO and jury trials. In my mind, patent claims that have withstood multiple administrative and judiciary reviews should be considered presumptively valid. It would not only be unfair to the patent holder but would be a waste of both PTO's time and resources to subject such presumptively valid patent claims to yet another administrative review. It would be particularly wasteful and injurious to legitimate patent holders if the ``transitional review'' only considered prior art that was already considered in the previous administrative or judicial proceedings. Can the Chairman enlighten me as to how the PTO will ensure that the ``transitional process'' does not become a tool to harass owners of valid patents that have survived multiple administrative and judicial reviews''?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I also share the Senator's view that nothing in H.R. 2715 is intended to delay the Commission's rulemaking with respect to third party testing and believe that Commission should conclude its testing rulemakings in the next 2 months. I supported H.R. 2715 because it made minor modifications to an important consumer product safety law and supported implementation of important aspect of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act such as the consumer product database. This bill will require the CPSC to extend the deadline for posting reports on defective products by 5 days if a business asserts that the information in the report is not accurate. However, this change does not alter the fact that the Commission still must post the report in the database after those 5 days even if it is still reviewing the merits of the complaint.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, our greatest Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, in his drive to end slavery, said ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.'' With these few words, Lincoln is calling to us through the echoing halls of history. He is calling for us to put aside our differences and to become unified into one people, one Nation, one common purpose. Mr. Lincoln recognized that the issue of slavery was tearing this great Nation apart and that it could not survive half slave and half free. Slavery was the great unfinished business of our Founders. The institution of slavery was so ingrained in the infant country's past and future that even Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin could not disentangle it. I am not trying to equate carrying too much debt with slavery, please understand that, but the truth remains. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This house, this Nation, this Republic, is divided against itself. Our Founders called their effort at establishing a new Nation ``a great experiment''--and it has been. Nothing like it had ever been tried and America has been the unequaled success in all of world history. Truly, we are the envy of the world. We began as 13 weak and barely united States but quickly became the strongest country in the Western Hemisphere. About 70 years after we adopted the Constitution, we survived a deadly Civil War. All the while we grew in stature and in favor with other nations. Our economic power grew rapidly. American influence grew as we became the agent of democracy and capitalism for the entire world. Although our military power was slow to develop, we fought on the winning side in two world wars and we grew into an economic, military and cultural super power. We are a Nation of immigrants, of many faiths, of many races and our national call to union is E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Out of many States is forged one Nation. Out of many races is forged one people. Out of many, one. The Founding Fathers had to balance the agrarian interests of the South and West with the industrial and shipping interests of the North and East. They balanced small States and big States. They balanced regions dominated by the frontier with regions dominated by the old world. They balanced Catholicism and Protestantism and Judaism. They balanced English culture with German culture with French culture. Out of many, one. Had previous generations of leaders not achieved oneness, we would not be, could not be, the great Nation we are today. The Senate was added to the Constitution as a compromise. Washington, DC, was placed on the banks of the Potomac as a compromise. States were added to the union as the result of compromise. In this sense, America's ability to find compromise has always been our pathway to greatness. Our Founders established this more perfect union with the clear-eyed knowledge that came from experience that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Division leads to failure. To make our democracy work, we all must work together. We must acknowledge that we have differences of opinion and differing points of view, but we must commit to unity. The floor of the U.S. Senate is the marketplace for ideas and it is a window into democracy that is a living testimony to the greatness and diversity of our Nation. The floor of the U.S. Senate should not be a graveyard for ideas or innovation or promise. Campaigns should stop at the threshold of this chamber. What happens in this chamber is much greater than any single Senator's political fortunes, and it is much more important than a political party's fate at the next general election. We have a sacred responsibility to the people through the Constitution, and if we orient ourselves to the next presidential election, we are failing in our duty. The U.S. Senate, at its core, by its nature, is where decisions get made. We have our ideological battles here, that is certain, but this is where consensus should be achieved. The Senate should fuel the engine that propels us to a better future, not stall that engine. All Americans should fully participate in our government. We should register to vote and serve on the jury. We must volunteer in the schools and pay our taxes. We must teach our children about our country, their country, and prepare them for their time to lead. We must tell them that our system of government is the best that man ever devised and that it works. It works very well if we allow it to work. This moment in history is a day where we can show our children, as well as our Founding Fathers, that this is no longer a house divided. We can show the world that our parents instilled in us the value of E Pluribus Unum. America's best days lay ahead if we are mutually committed to that future. It is, however, not possible unless we set aside our differences and work together for that common goal. My fellow Senators, please heed the words of Abraham Lincoln and understand that there is truth of what he said, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I understand that we are in morning business and Senators are allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln once said: I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. I think that is where we are today. I think we need to bring the people the facts about our Nation's debt. People in my State see through the games being played in Washington. They want solutions, courage, and leadership--the kind that puts us on a more secure fiscal path for the future. Mr. Bryant of Hot Springs Village, AR, writes: We know we have to increase the debt ceiling, so let's get serious about finding a solution. . . . Why is this a problem for our politicians? The public expects responsible leadership not the demagoguery we are getting from both sides of the aisle. That is the sentiment I hear around my State, and I am certain many of my colleagues are hearing this around the Nation. So here are the facts: For over 230 years, the U.S. Government has honored its obligations. Even in the face of the Civil War, two World Wars, and the Depression, America has paid its bills. Yet now we stand on the brink of tarnishing the full faith and credit of the United States. We stand here because Congress has failed to bring the American people the real facts. The easiest thing for politicians to do is say they are for lower taxes and for increased spending. This mindset has rung up a $14.2 trillion national debt. We now borrow 41 cents of every dollar we spend. Under this debt, combined with the theatrics playing out in the House and the Senate, the unthinkable could happen. The 80 million bills the Federal Government pays could come to a screeching halt. That means millions of seniors may not receive their Social Security checks in the mail, troops may not receive paychecks, Medicare patients could be denied care, and the stock market could significantly drop. Moreover, credit rating agencies have warned us that we will likely lose our AAA credit rating without immediate action. Interest rates would permanently rise, piling on additional costs for families. The costs of owning a home, buying food, filling a gas tank, sending kids to college, and buying a car will become even more expensive. There is one more real fact I wish to highlight. A default adds heavily to our debt. For every 1-percent increase in the interest rates we pay, it adds $1.3 trillion to the debt. It is no wonder last summer the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, ``Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.'' The Gang of 6 offers an alternative--a comprehensive roadmap that allows us to tackle the debt in a reasonable, responsible, and fair manner. I applaud Mark Warner, Saxby Chambliss, Kent Conrad, Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo, and Dick Durbin on this bipartisan effort. By leaving out political agendas, these Senators--these statesmen-- produced a plan to slash deficits by $3.7 trillion over 10 years. This plan follows the blueprint put forth by the fiscal commission following a year's worth of study and collaboration. In addition to an immediate $500 billion downpayment, the plan puts everything on the table. It balances the need to reduce spending, adjusts entitlement programs, and reforms our Tax Code. While I may not agree with every provision, I do like that it falls on every citizen to contribute to debt reduction. It allows us to achieve measurable results without jeopardizing safety net programs meant to protect the most vulnerable among us. Furthermore, it avoids gimmicks such as a constitutional amendment or cut, cap, and balance, which offer a nice sound bite but falls short. I am hopeful a gang of 60 will embrace this plan and that we can include it as part of the final debt ceiling solution. Congress has created this cliffhanger moment. Americans and leaders all over the world are now watching. The question for Congress remains: Will we rise to the occasion or will we fail? Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

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