Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for measures contained in the Energy bill, H.R. 6, designed to spur the design and construction of high-performance green buildings. After reviewing the bill, I am pleased with the approach title IV takes to green buildings by retaining the balanced provisions from the earlier Senate and House versions of the bill. I am also pleased that the provision from the House-passed bill that specifically mentioned the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, Rating System was amended. The LEED Rating System does not recognize the energy and environmental benefits of wood building materials in its point structure. Wood products are among the most ``green'' of all building materials. The Energy bill lays out general criteria that allow green building rating systems in the marketplace to compete for the Government's business. This is a sensible approach that will promote the concept of green building design without referencing one rating system over another. It is important that the General Services Administration and other agencies ensure that the balanced spirit of this legislation is embraced. There are at least two green building rating systems being used by Federal agencies and the private marketplace now, and the competition among these two systems has resulted in improvements in both. The best approach is to permit the marketplace to decide which rating system is best suited for each project, and this legislation will allow all of rating systems to compete for Government contracts.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, as many others have said today, it is difficult for me on a personal level to speak against this amendment because I have such great respect for the two sponsors of the amendment. However, let me say this to my colleagues who are here, or the staff watching on C-SPAN 2 right now, for the Senators and staff who are looking at this amendment and thinking about previous votes they have made on this same subject and wondering what the differences might be between this and other votes they have cast, there is one major difference and that is the context of this vote. The context of this vote is in a reform bill. Previous votes have been, as we have talked about earlier, in budget bills, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This one is in an agriculture reform bill. The farmers in our section of the country have given up a lot. What we have given up goes into nutrition programs, goes into conservation, goes into energy, rural development, and new programs for specialty crops. When we talk about adjusted gross income, the hard cap in this bill that came out of committee, the three-entity rule reform, all are major gives by farmers in our section of the country. Quite frankly, if this amendment is adopted, I believe it will destroy the American cotton and rice industry. We will continue to use cotton and rice, but it will increase our trade deficit. We will import it from other parts of the world. Our food and fiber will be grown in countries that do not have our same standards on the environment or on labor or in many other areas. So I have to ask my colleagues: Do we think that is good public policy? I called a friend of mine this weekend. In fact, it was on December 9. I called him and I said: Hey, are you all set up to go duck hunting, because I want to take my 13-year-old down there and go duck hunting. He said: Not yet, because we are still working the fields. They are still working on December 9 in the rice fields in Arkansas. Now, the rice is gone, but they have to maintain the levees. They have to do all kinds of things. I don't even know what they do. But the truth is my friend, and farmers all over this country, cotton and rice farmers, have huge investments they have made. They have business plans. They have bought combines. They have bought other very expensive pieces of farm equipment. They would have to totally reconfigure their fields. They would have to destroy a very elaborate and very expensive levee system. It is not fair for us to go through these reforms we have already done and now to ask our rice farmers to do this. So when I think about my friend, I think about what he would have to go through--in fact, he is the hardest working person I know--I think about the impact it is going to have on rural communities and about the fact that we are talking about food security and protecting the integrity of the American food supply, and we are talking about importing more rice and cotton, et cetera. It is hard for me to understand why the Senate would want to do that. I have to remind my colleagues of a quote that our colleague in the House made, Marion Berry. He said: If you like importing your oil, you will love importing your food. I hear the arguments my colleagues are making about the so-called cowboy starter kit. I have heard about that. It is a funny story, but it makes you mad as a taxpayer. The fact is, the USDA today can fix that problem. It should have already been fixed, but for whatever reason, they have not fixed it. They have the authority to fix that today. Now, I have heard the other side say they are concerned about money going to people who don't farm. There is one key thing that my other colleagues need to understand, and that is that they may not be farming, but the land is being farmed. The land is being farmed. They share the risk in that crop. And I heard Senator Grassley say a few moments ago that he and his family, and folks all over his State, enter into these rent-type agreements. Well, so do we. But the way this amendment is structured would absolutely destroy our cotton and rice farmers in our part of the country. In closing, this is difficult for me, but I am telling you, if this amendment is adopted, I cannot support this bill. It is very hard for me to come to the Senate floor and say I cannot support a farm bill, which is so critical to our State. If this amendment is adopted, I cannot support the farm bill. With that, I ask my colleagues to look at this very closely. I thank Senators Chambliss and Lincoln for their leadership.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor the University of Central Arkansas for its 100th anniversary. The university is located in Conway, AR, which lies in the central part of my State. The University of Central Arkansas began as the Arkansas State Normal School under the leadership of John James Doyne in 1907. In 1909, the first commencement ceremony was held to recognize 10 graduates. The school conferred its first baccalaureate degree in 1922 and was renamed Arkansas State Teachers College in 1925. The school was renamed State College of Arkansas in 1967, but was granted university status and renamed as the University of Central Arkansas in 1975. Since then, UCA has continued to excel by establishing the State's first Honors College, joining the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, and beginning its first doctoral program in 1998. Currently, the University of Central Arkansas has more than 100 undergraduate courses of study, 33 master's degree programs, and 3 doctoral programs. Arkansas has always made education a top priority and the University of Central Arkansas has a proud history of scholastic progress. The university is an integral part of the Arkansas community and the educational opportunities available provide graduates with the skills needed to succeed in today's workforce. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the University of Central Arkansas on its 100th anniversary and in wishing the university another 100 years of success.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who have been helping on S. 2045. These are in alphabetical order, not in the order of work done. Everybody has worked a lot on different parts of this bill. They are Senators Brown, Casey, Durbin, Harkin, Inouye, Klobuchar, Menendez, Bill Nelson, and Schumer. They have all helped craft this legislation relating to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Because we are now in the holiday season, naturally, public attention is focused on consumer product safety. I had come today prepared to ask unanimous consent to try to move to this legislation. However, last week, Thursday, I met with Al Hubbard at the White House in a very constructive meeting to talk about some of the areas of disagreement on the legislation, as it came out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It was a very constructive meeting, very frankly. I hope, in the end, we will consider that a very productive meeting. We don't know yet if there is a meeting of the minds, but I am cautiously optimistic that the White House is starting to engage in this very important issue to this country and to the families of America. Let's talk for a moment about the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For a lot of people, the CPSC is just one of these ``alphabet soup'' agencies, and they don't know what the CPSC does. But I will tell you, it touches every American's life every day. It is in the small things that we use, such as batteries, coffeemakers, lawnmowers, toys, and baby cribs. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is there to make sure these products are safe for people in my State of Arkansas to buy and for people all over this country to buy and use. One of the things the Consumer Product Safety Commission should do is give people in this country--including parents, when it comes to toys--peace of mind to know the toys they purchase and other products they purchase meet American safety standards. This bill we are talking about today, S. 2045, was called recently by the Wall Street Journal ``the most significant consumer safety legislation in a generation.'' I think that accurately sums up the nature of our legislation. It is consumer safety reform legislation. It is very significant, very comprehensive. Our efforts in reforming the CPSC predate a lot of the recalls we heard about this summer. We have been working on this all year in the subcommittee. Basically, the CPSC now looks after 15,000 separate consumer products. Every year, there are about, roughly, 27,000 deaths in this country caused by consumer products that are faulty. There are 33.1 million people injured every year through consumer products that the CPSC regulates. So this is an agency that is a public safety agency, a good Government agency. Unfortunately, the CSPC is completely overwhelmed today. I believe the Senate, the House, and the President should all work together to reauthorize this agency and put it back together again. Let me give some examples from this year alone. This year there have been 37 million products recalled. Some people may say: Gosh, it is working because all these products have been recalled. First, a lot of those products should never have been imported in the first place. A lot of them were recalled by the manufacturers, not the Government. In any event, we have seen stories about lead-coated Big Bird, Elmo, and Barbie accessories, and we have seen collapsing cribs and kerosene-filled toy eyeballs. We have seen building toys with small, very powerful, magnets that, when kids ingest them, cause problems. We have seen craft toys that contain the date rape drug. That is unbelievable, but we have seen in this country a craft set, or a craft toy, that contains the date rape drug. These products should never be in the marketplace to begin with. Let me talk about the status quo for a moment. The status quo today, with this flood of imports coming into this country, is completely unacceptable. We should not stand idly by and allow these products to saturate our markets. There have been stories in the last few days about charities and charitable giving. One of the great organizations during this time of year is the U.S. Marine Corps. They do the Toys for Tots Program. They have been doing it for many years. Even when I was a kid, it was a big deal because there were always kids in the community less fortunate than I was. We would gather our toys around our house and take them down to a drop station, wherever it may be, and the Marines would sort them out and deliver them to kids who needed toys on Christmas morning or during the holiday season. One of my staff members, Jason Smedley, is a marine. Yesterday, he went to DC to volunteer on the Marine Corps Toys for Tots, the big disbursing office. Unfortunately, what he found was that the donations to Toys for Tots are way down this year because parents and other donors don't have confidence in the toys they are giving because there might be something wrong with them. Also, you find, as Jason told me, at the Toys for Tots location in Washington, DC, they have three-ring binders with all kinds of toy recall information in them. Every toy that comes in, they go through that book to make sure that toy hasn't been recalled. Does that sound efficient to anyone? No. That means the CPSC has not been able to do its job and protect our marketplace from these dangerous toys. There was another story in our local paper, the Arkansas Democratic Gazette, yesterday where toy recalls have hurt instate charities, the locally based charities. You see the same story there, where donations are down. It has been a very hard season for those people who are in that toy distribution operation during the holiday season. There is a great leader in Arkansas, Hezekiah Steward. He is a reverend, and he runs something called the Watershed Human Development Center. People in our State call it the Watershed Project. He tries to meet the needs of the most needy in the Little Rock area. He does a great job. When I was Attorney General, we had a program and we tried to donate as many toys as we could to Watershed and also to Toys for Tots. We tried to help the Watershed because they are touching people in the community that a lot of times fall through the cracks. Again, Hezekiah Steward is in that article yesterday in the Arkansas Democratic Gazette, saying the donations were down and they are having to screen the toys. It is basically a big mess. In addition to that, I have talked to parents and grandparents in Arkansas, and they are telling me the same thing. They are saying: This holiday season, when we want to buy toys, we don't know what to trust anymore. If it says ``made in China,'' we don't buy it. That is not a good screening process. Hopefully, most of the toys in the marketplace are safe today, but the public has lost confidence in the system we have now, and we in the Senate, in the U.S. House, and also in the White House need to do a much better job of giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission the tools it needs. Let me talk a little bit about the Consumer Product Safety Commission and help lay out the problem. Here on this chart we see something that is very revealing. We see on the top chart the imports coming into this country. What we see on the bottom chart is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's staffing level year by year. One thing you will notice-- this is very clear, and the numbers are unmistakable--is that starting in 1974, you see the general trend; it goes up and down a little bit, but the general trend is for imports to increase coming into this country. We all know that. Everybody in this body knows we have seen imports increase dramatically in the United States in the last few years. This is borne out on the chart. Unfortunately, as the imports are going up, the staff at the CPSC is going down. You can see these numbers. Again, they are unmistakable. This is an agency in distress. If you look at what it was at its high versus what it is today, the numbers are unmistakable. The problem with the numbers is, when you see the low numbers like this on the staffing level, when you understand the situation their lab is in, where it is dilapidated and antiquated, and they are losing many people through attrition, you understand all the problems the agency has and that it is totally overwhelmed. When you look at this number, which is at an all-time low, and imports are at an all-time high, you know we have a problem. In this body, we need to address that problem. There is no better time to address it than right now. Let me talk for a moment about what I think we need at the CPSC. We need a robust and proactive watchdog agency. We need to prevent toxic toys from ever landing on our shores and on our shelves. We need to be able to respond very quickly when there is a problem. We need to have a system in place where we can punish the bad actors and punish the repeat offenders. Again, I have been talking to the White House, and I want to be cautiously optimistic about what the White House told me on the phone and in meetings, but we all need to work together to try to get this done. Let me run through some of the things that S. 2045 does. Basically, what we are doing is taking this agency that needs an overhaul, and we are overhauling it. What we are trying to do is increase the staff by nearly 20 percent over time. We are trying to upgrade their testing labs. We are trying to increase their agents at ports of entry, again, so the dangerous products never enter this country. We are trying to allow the States' attorneys general to be more like cops on the beat and help the CPSC enforce the laws in all 50 States, not just in one centralized location at the CPSC itself. We want to increase the civil fines and the criminal penalties. Also, as part of this, we want to do our dead level best to streamline the recall process. It takes too long, it is too secretive, and there are many examples of people dying as discussions are going on between the manufacturers and the CPSC on how a recall will be conducted. This is very important. This bill bans lead in children's products. I think that is very important for the American public to understand. Right now, there is not a ban on lead in children's products. We know it is dangerous, and that is well documented. Our doctors, medical researchers, and scientists have told us that. So we need to ban lead in children's products. This bill also allows the CPSC to select recall remedies. It doesn't leave it up to the manufacture or the bad actors. Not all manufacturers or retailers are bad. In fact, the supermajority of them are not. They are trying to do what is right. At the end of the day, the CPSC needs to make decisions that are in the public interest--not some of these manufacturers and retailers and distributors, et cetera, and what is in their own corporate interests. We need a watchdog agency that will be there to protect the public interest. This bill increases public disclosure. That is important because most parents have heard something on the news or read a little something in the paper, but they really don't have an easy way to know what is being recalled or exactly when it gets recalled. We want more public disclosure, and we want it to happen quicker. Also, regarding children's products, we want a third party process, where a third party will certify that those products meet U.S. safety standards. We have that in a lot of other areas, such as electronics. There are a lot of third-party certification processes that exist in the marketplace. We need that for children's products. The last two or three things the bill does is it improves the tracking labels on children's products. When we get a toy, and they say there is a recall, say, on a certain kind of doll, there may be 10 varieties of that doll. We may have bought a doll made a year ago and it has been in a warehouse. We don't know. We want a better labeling and tracking system. We want to provide whistleblower protections. If there are people out there who know there is wrongdoing and somebody is covering it up--we see this in other contexts--we want to allow that whistleblower to come forward and not be punished for doing what is right. The last point I wish to mention is the bill prohibits the sale of recalled products. Again, a lot of people in this country may be shocked to know that in many circumstances--not all--but in many circumstances, we see recalled products still for sale on the open market. Parents would be shocked to know that fact, but it is true. We are trying to do our best, give our best effort to have a serious and fundamental reform of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. One more point in closing, and that is, there are two major goals we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. First, we are trying to rebuild the agency. That is very important for the functioning of that agency. As I said before, it is overwhelmed. I showed some charts. There are many others I can point out to show how overwhelmed this agency is. First and foremost, we want to rebuild the agency. And second--and this point flows from the first point--we want to restore public confidence in the marketplace. We don't want to be at the next holiday season and moms and dads are coming up to me in Arkansas and coming up to my colleagues all over the country saying: Should I buy toys for my children and grandchildren this year? That is what I hear when I go back home. People are concerned, they are scared, they are uncertain about the American marketplace, and that is too bad. We do not need that to happen. We need our people to have confidence in the marketplace in this country. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the House as well and in the White House, I ask everyone to give this legislation a serious look. We would like to move it forward this month, before the end of this year, during this holiday season. I know there are some folks who expressed interest in trying to help get that done. I am available any day, any night. My staff is available. We definitely want to work with whomever is willing to work to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission reauthorization done. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will bring important consumer protections to millions of wireless telephone customers across the country. The Uniform Wireless Consumer Protection Act requires the Federal Communications Commission to establish uniform national customer service and consumer protection rules for wireless customers that are both timely and necessary. My bill is identical to language approved with bipartisan support by the Senate Commerce Committee during the 109th Congress. In 1993, through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress limited State and local regulatory authority on wireless carriers to help the fledgling industry establish itself in the communications arena. That decision has helped to drive today's market of 240 million wireless customers in the U.S. Today, carrying a wireless telephone, a BlackBerry, or some other kind of wireless device has become part of the fabric of many peoples' lives. Wireless technology has become a commonplace communication option, and an increasing number of Americans have replaced their landline telephone in favor of a purely mobile telephone service. While we have accomplished the goal of growing the wireless industry, we have yet to establish a uniform set of customer service and consumer protection requirements. Now is the time to finish the job we started in 1993 by enacting a national framework that will drive a new era of consumer-friendly wireless services. This national consumer framework is not without challenges. The ability of wireless to travel beyond State boundaries tests our customary approaches to customer service and consumer protection standards at the state and local level. But nothing in this bill should be misconstrued as a statement against consumer obligations by State and local governments. As a former Attorney General of Arkansas, I feel very strongly about the inimitable ability of State and local governments to oversee and enforce consumer protections. State and local governments are unmatched in their function to provide effective protection and enforcement, and final rules must recognize and require a strong role for states in wireless consumer protection. In addition, my colleagues Senator Klobuchar and Senator Rockefeller have introduced a bill, S. 2033, the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007, that shares the same goal of protecting wireless consumers, and I look forward to working with them. Uniform wireless consumer protection rules must be comprehensive and address a broad range of issues, including disclosures of contract terms and conditions, service-area maps, trail periods and early termination fees. We also need to weigh the benefits and the burdens of government fees and taxes, as well as the costs of compliance with government regulations on wireless services. I know my constituents want to be assured of their consumer protections when they buy and use wireless service, wherever they go and wherever they use their wireless phones. This bill begins an important debate on building uniform, comprehensive rules that provide a fair, transparent and quality wireless service to consumers across the Nation. While there is much work to be done in achieving a balance of rules that truly work for consumers, there is a clear need for a federal wireless regulatory framework. I am confident that we can reach this goal.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will bring important consumer protections to millions of wireless telephone customers across the country. The Uniform Wireless Consumer Protection Act requires the Federal Communications Commission to establish uniform national customer service and consumer protection rules for wireless customers that are both timely and necessary. My bill is identical to language approved with bipartisan support by the Senate Commerce Committee during the 109th Congress. In 1993, through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress limited State and local regulatory authority on wireless carriers to help the fledgling industry establish itself in the communications arena. That decision has helped to drive today's market of 240 million wireless customers in the U.S. Today, carrying a wireless telephone, a BlackBerry, or some other kind of wireless device has become part of the fabric of many peoples' lives. Wireless technology has become a commonplace communication option, and an increasing number of Americans have replaced their landline telephone in favor of a purely mobile telephone service. While we have accomplished the goal of growing the wireless industry, we have yet to establish a uniform set of customer service and consumer protection requirements. Now is the time to finish the job we started in 1993 by enacting a national framework that will drive a new era of consumer-friendly wireless services. This national consumer framework is not without challenges. The ability of wireless to travel beyond State boundaries tests our customary approaches to customer service and consumer protection standards at the state and local level. But nothing in this bill should be misconstrued as a statement against consumer obligations by State and local governments. As a former Attorney General of Arkansas, I feel very strongly about the inimitable ability of State and local governments to oversee and enforce consumer protections. State and local governments are unmatched in their function to provide effective protection and enforcement, and final rules must recognize and require a strong role for states in wireless consumer protection. In addition, my colleagues Senator Klobuchar and Senator Rockefeller have introduced a bill, S. 2033, the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007, that shares the same goal of protecting wireless consumers, and I look forward to working with them. Uniform wireless consumer protection rules must be comprehensive and address a broad range of issues, including disclosures of contract terms and conditions, service-area maps, trail periods and early termination fees. We also need to weigh the benefits and the burdens of government fees and taxes, as well as the costs of compliance with government regulations on wireless services. I know my constituents want to be assured of their consumer protections when they buy and use wireless service, wherever they go and wherever they use their wireless phones. This bill begins an important debate on building uniform, comprehensive rules that provide a fair, transparent and quality wireless service to consumers across the Nation. While there is much work to be done in achieving a balance of rules that truly work for consumers, there is a clear need for a federal wireless regulatory framework. I am confident that we can reach this goal.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to a dedication ceremony occurring on September 28, 2007, in Little Rock, AR. The Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. Courthouse, located at 500 West Capitol Avenue, is named after one of Arkansas's rarest of men. Judge Arnold intertwined great skill in law with unmatched integrity and character. The late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., once described his former law clerk as ``one of the most gifted members of the federal judiciary.'' Other colleagues point to Judge Arnold as a lifetime teacher, master of the written word, and a model of humility. In his obituary, which he wrote, Judge Arnold said that he thought if he left a mark on the world at all, it would be in his written opinions. However, he concluded that his administrative assignments were his most significant achievements. His legal career began at Yale College, where he earned a bachelor's degree summa cum laude in 1957 followed by graduation magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1960. Immediately out of law school, he served as a law clerk to Justice Brennan before joining the Washington, DC, office of Covington & Burling, also serving as a part-time instructor at the University of Virginia Law School. In 1964, he returned to Texarkana, AR, as a partner at Arnold & Arnold. During this time, he also began working as a legislative secretary to Governor Dale Bumpers and later moved to Washington, DC, when Bumpers was elected U.S. Senator. Judge Arnold's reputation for judicial brilliance and impeccable civility advanced while he served as the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. He was confirmed again in 1980 when President Carter nominated him to a new seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judge Arnold served as chief judge from 1992 to 1998. In addition to his work on the bench, Judge Arnold's service and leadership extended into countless civic, political, and educational projects. He was the recipient of numerous awards, most notably the 1996 Environmental Law Institute Award, Award for Service to Women in the Law from the St. Louis Women Lawyers Association in 1998, the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award in 1999, and the Meador-Rosenberg Award for the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements of the American Bar Association in 1999. He also received honorary doctor of law degrees from the University of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and the University of Richmond. He is also the author of many legal articles in many of the Nation's most respected law reviews and journals. The American Law Institute cites Judge Arnold's accomplishments as ``remarkable by any measure'' and then adds ``they neither capture nor define the quality and spirit of the man who achieved them.'' The same is true for this courthouse. It cannot fully honor Judge Arnold for his contributions to society, but it does serve as a standing and strong reminder of an extraordinary Judge and the justice he pursued in and out of the courtroom.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, the names Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Melba Pattillo Beals are part of Arkansas history and part of America's history. When I talked to the so-called Little Rock Nine about the fact that we were able to secure funding for the visitors center, Minnijean Brown Trickey said it was an affirmation of a very beautiful and tragic story. I think she captured it. The story of Little Rock Central High School in 1957 is a story of courage, of hardship, of justice, faith, tradition, power, opportunity, and leadership. I think that is why the story is so powerful, because it connects so many of those things all in one event or one series of events. It has all of those elements, but there is also more to the story. The ``more to the story'' part is what I wanted to talk about today. We are here to talk about the events in 1957, to talk about the very painful but ultimately successful integration of a large public high school in a Southern city. I need to thank my colleagues, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas; my colleague in the House, Congressman Vic Snyder; and also a colleague who is no longer with us in the Senate, Conrad Burns, because we all worked together to get the money for the Little Rock Central High Visitors Center, which will open this coming Monday. But that is not all who worked in this effort. The National Park Service, the city of Little Rock, the 50th Anniversary Commemoration Committee, the Little Rock Nine Foundation, and countless others worked to have this special grand opening Monday; to have a visitors center, for a place that has a place in our Nation's history on the civil rights struggle that has gone on in this country. Also, I wish to say that Congressman Vic Snyder was able to get a commemorative coin for Little Rock Central and the Little Rock Nine. I certainly helped him do that, along with Senator Lincoln. We all worked hard on that, but Congressman Snyder took the lead role. This Friday night at Little Rock Central High School in Quigley Stadium, the Little Rock Central High Tigers will play the Pine Bluff Zebras. Once again, we find Little Rock Central is ranked in the top 10 in the Arkansas top 10 football rankings. But that stadium played a role in the Central High crisis. It is a role that is often forgotten because we focus on the Little Rock Nine, and certainly we should. We focus on the turbulence in trying to integrate the school, and certainly we should. But also there were many other happenings at Little Rock Central that year. One of them was Little Rock Central High School just so happened to have what Sports Illustrated and other sports magazines and publications have called one of the alltime greatest high school football teams. That week Central High won its 23rd game in a row, against a team from Louisiana. The week before they beat a team from Texas. That same week, when the 101st Airborne showed up to restore order and keep the peace around the campus of Little Rock High School, the 101st Airborne set up their equipment on the Tigers' practice field. Well, that was a huge no-no in the mind of Coach Wilson Matthews. He went out there and he barked orders to the 101st Airborne like they were his own football team. They hopped to and they got off the practice field. That Friday night, when the stands were full and the Tigers took the field, they looked up and there was the 101st Airborne cheering for the Central High School Tigers. That story is captured in a great story in Sports Illustrated from this past year's April 9 publication. It captures the humanity and the impact that crisis had on people, not just that day or that year but for a lifetime. The Little Rock Central High School story is complicated in some ways. It is about the best and the worst in American history. In some ways, it is about a city that is struggling to try, in postwar America, to work through many racial issues. It is a story that is not always successful. It is not always easy. But it is a story that in the end is a great story and is one that needs to be told. Let me talk for a couple more minutes about the events of that day and why Little Rock Central is so important to the history of this country. First, we focus on the Little Rock Nine, and understandably these nine young black children had to pay a huge price; it took a lot of courage to do what they did. But it is more than them. We had a Southern city that, by most standards, was considered to be a moderate Southern city when it came to race. The Little Rock School Board took the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision literally, and they believed they needed to integrate the Little Rock School System with all deliberate speed, as the Supreme Court said. The quickest they could figure out to do it was in the fall of 1957. Of course, when that happened, they entered into this vortex of emotions, this vortex where you see a nation being torn apart by race and by many policies, not just in the South. We talk about the South, but certainly there is racism all over this country, and this country was in a struggle for civil rights. In fact, it goes back to the founding documents of our democracy and our Declaration of Independence. It says all men are created equal. That is what the desegregation, the integration movement was about in this country: Are all men created equal or are there going to be two sets of everything for people in this country? The Supreme Court did what it did. The local school board did what it did. The Governor in our State, to his everlasting shame, did not support what the school board did and actually energized people to oppose what the school board had done. The President had to call in the 101st Airborne to try to stop what was going on at Little Rock Central. Here is a photo of the famous Little Rock Nine. They are going to be honored all week in Little Rock. Again, they showed tremendous courage as they went through this process. Here we see a photo of Little Rock Central High with the 101st Airborne escorting students into the building. It is hard to imagine today; we have made such progress. I will be the first to say we are not there yet when it comes to race, but we have made so much progress. Little Rock Central High School was a turning point. It didn't mean the struggle was over. In a lot of ways, it meant the struggle was beginning. But we have made a lot of progress. We have a lot to be proud of. Not everything that happened in 1957 is something Arkansas is proud of. But nonetheless, it was a huge turning point in making this country better. I close talking about Little Rock Central High School today. Here is a photo of it today. The school looks identical to the way it looked in 1957. The architects of this country have called it one of the most beautiful high schools in America. It is now also one of the most successful high schools in America. I pulled something off a history Web site. It says: Central offers students an international studies magnet program and an extensive curriculum including more than 30 Advanced Placement . . . courses. Central consistently has more National Merit Semifinalists than any other school in the state (19 in 2006-07 alone), claims a large percentage of the state's National Achievement Semifinalists (approximately 20% of Arkansas' total between 1994 and 2004) and has produced 15 Presidential Scholars since the program's inception in 1964. Part of the story of Little Rock Central must include what has happened since September 25, 1957. Part of the story of Little Rock Central is a story about rebuilding, about integrating, about coming back, and about success. I was very honored to have an opportunity to go to Little Rock Central High School, as did the husband of the senior Senator from the State of Arkansas. It has produced many strong leaders in the State. One of those was a dear friend of mine, Roosevelt Thompson, who passed away tragically when he was in college. But the story of Little Rock Central is a story that touches all of us. It is a very important part of our State's history and our national history. We are honored that all nine of the Little Rock Nine are still living today and will be in Little Rock this week to commemorate some very difficult but very important events for this country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today with great pleasure to commend an exceptional group of my constituents and acknowledge September 12, 2007, as the National Day of Encouragement. The concept behind the National Day of Encouragement was developed in June 2007 as part of the National Leadership Forum at Harding University in Searcy, AR. The National Leadership Forum, NLF, was composed of a group of enterprising high school students from around the country who were challenged to think of constructive ways to help their respective schools. One group said that discouragement or ``the lack of encouragement'' was the biggest problem they faced in school as well as in society today. From there, the idea of an official Day of Encouragement as a possible solution was born. According to Andrew Baker, the codirector of NLF, the students chose September 12 as the National Day of Encouragement in hopes of ``balancing the discouraging feelings of 9/11''. The goal was to ``challenge people not to just think about the idea of encouragement but to do something that will encourage someone else.'' Since the conception of the National Day of Encouragement, grassroots efforts have been working towards creating a real sense of encouragement in cities, schools, places of employment, and homes. Even the smallest gesture such as a smile, a pat on the back, or a kind word, has the ability to communicate love and compassion that can raise spirits and spur motivation, especially on a day like September 12. Americans have endured great hardship and heartbreak as a result of the terrorist attacks, but this has not broken our faith, courage and an unshakable commitment to freedom, democracy and, most importantly, each other. Yesterday, we remembered the tragedy of September 11, and we honored its victims. Today, we honor the victims again by remembering the sacrifices made by thousands of Americans to help the victims of the attacks and their families. Their acts of kindness and generosity inspired and encouraged the entire Nation. I encourage my fellow colleagues, citizens of all ages, as well as those in schools, organizations, businesses, and media outlets, to encourage others on this day, through an act of service, a thoughtful letter, or words of kindness and inspiration to thereby boost the overall morale of all. I would also like to commend the extraordinary group of high school students who participated in the National Leadership Forum this year. They have shown the ability to analyze critical issues with insight and intellect, and it is an honor to stand here before you today and recognize all of them and their accomplishments. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his attention to this issue. Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Senate Appropriations State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the situation at the State Department's Passport Services Offices. Like many Members on both sides of the Hill, my office in recent months has been deluged by constituents who have had tremendous difficulties getting passports in time for trips they have planned, often many months in advance. I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee has responded to this situation by providing additional resources to the Department to address the passport backlog. Freedom and ease of travel to foreign destinations is extremely important to the competitiveness of American business as well as for individual recreational and family needs. Many American businesses, including a significant part of the American travel industry, depend on passport services companies to obtain necessary travel documents for their employees and customers in an expedited fashion so they can travel not just when they want to but when they need to. Passport services firms also assist individual citizens when they are not located near one of the regional passport offices, have physical disabilities, or simply cannot get off work to make a personal visit to the passport office. The number of passport issuances nationally has grown by more than 130 percent in recent years. At the same time, the demand of U.S. citizens and corporations for the expedited services of passport services companies has never been greater. However, in recent years regional Passport Services Offices have limited the number of ``slots,'' or applications, that individual passport services companies can submit on a daily basis. The reductions at all the regional offices collectively have reduced nationally the number of applications individual companies can submit by over 40 percent. It is now clear that the recent problems with passport delays faced by the traveling public as a whole are related to the problems faced by passport services companies in the last few years: lack of resources and improper allocation of resources by the Department. Instead of creating more work, passport services companies assist passport services' adjudicators by using barcode computer technology, ensuring application forms and supporting documents are filled out accurately and completely, and improving efficiency and decreasing confusion at passport acceptance facilities nationwide by thoroughly preparing applicants before acceptance agents. Leading travel industry representatives have formally expressed strong support for efforts to allow passport services companies to submit more applications. The American Society of Travel Agents, Cruise Lines International Association, the National Business Travel Association, the Travel Business Roundtable, and the Travel Industry Association of America have all written the Department of State expressing unqualified support for the industry's request for more slots for individual companies. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, is it true that the committee has provided the Department $40 million over the President's budget request to enhance passport operations?

Mr. PRYOR. Increasing the number of daily applications individual passport service companies can submit is an essential component of meeting the personal and business travel needs of American citizens who require special assistance. Because these companies submit applications to the exact specifications of Passport Services, allowing individual firms to submit more applications daily would enable Passport Services to adjudicate a greater number of applications more efficiently. As the chairman may know, Arkansas is now home to a passport processing facility that is working on all cylinders helping to eliminate the backlog. The Washington Regional Agency of Passport Services already has staff dedicated exclusively to processing applications submitted by passport services companies. Does the chairman/ranking member of the subcommittee agree that we should encourage the consideration of a similar approach in all regional offices to facilitate the daily increase in applications for passport services firms and recommend Passport Services expand one of its regional offices to provide significantly expanded dedicated services to passport service companies?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2952, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish everyone a good night, and if there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Friday, August 3; that on Friday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then proceed to executive session, as under the previous order.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1974, introduced earlier today by Senator Kennedy and others, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 319, S. 775.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2863, which was received from the House.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record as if read.