Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the debate on S. 3711, Amy Jasperson and David Mitchell, fellows in the office of Senator Bill Nelson, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3711. I found the comments of our colleague from Tennessee, the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee, very interesting. Basically, he and I are on the same page on this issue; that is, I hope S. 3711 is part of a larger, smarter energy policy for this Nation. There are really two sides of this equation, and then there are some complications in between. Basically, the two sides are supply and demand. We have not done a lot on the supply side in the last few years, so I think it is important for us to look at drilling as an option. Certainly lease area 181 makes a lot of sense. We have infrastructure there. Generally speaking, we know how much oil and natural gas is in lease area 181. It is not a big stretch for people in those industries to get out there and find that oil and gas and get it to the marketplace. So traditional drilling in that sense makes a lot of sense, in my mind. Also, I hope the Senate will continue to work on legislation to encourage alternative fuels, such as biofuels--I know the President in his State of the Union Address mentioned cellulosic fuel, and that is important--ethanol, agriculture products, animal waste, et cetera. That is just smart energy policy, and it creates a supply of energy. And that is very important. On the other hand, we need to look at demand and we need to look at conservation. Certainly, this country can do much more with regard to conservation, with some industries and some aspect of our economy, and also efficiency. We need to become more efficient and smarter and use technology to try to get smarter on our energy usage. I certainly concur with what the Senator from Tennessee talked about, supply and demand. We know under the current conditions gas prices will not go down by themselves. We are going to have to do some things in this country to help the oil markets get where the American public want them to be. Also, S. 3711 on offshore drilling makes a lot of sense because it is narrowly focused and narrowly tailored. It is the right policy at the right time. Maybe one of the more controversial parts of this bill is revenue sharing. I am from an interior State. Under the circumstances as presented today, I don't have any objection to revenue sharing. I know Arkansas will not benefit as much as the States on the coast, but that is OK. We know the devastation the hurricanes caused in that region of the country, and we understand that one of our 50 States-- Louisiana, in particular--has been dramatically impacted and maybe forever altered by Hurricane Katrina. Certainly Alabama and Mississippi have had their share of hardship. When we look at New Orleans and look at that coastal area of Louisiana, we understand they are in dire straits. We understand this is a unique time in history, and we need to get the resources to the gulf coast to help right now rebuild the gulf coast but also help with future storms. The other point I like about S. 3711 is that it recognizes that the cost of energy ripples throughout all of our economy. A few moments ago, we heard someone mention that with regard to farmers and fertilizer, about 90 percent of the cost of fertilizer is the cost of natural gas. If we look at the plastic that is in this pen, some of that cost is in the petroleum and natural gas that is required to make this product. All that eventually, ultimately, gets passed on through the economy. So when we see very high natural gas prices and very high oil prices, we know it is inflationary and we know the damage those high prices can do to our Nation's economy. Arkansans--and I think all Americans--feel squeezed right now. If a family used heat in the wintertime, if they cooked with natural gas, they paid an average of $920 in natural gas last year. That is a lot of money. That is an increase of $178 just over the winter months I am talking about. That is a lot of money. Those are real dollars to people in my State and I know people around the country. The price of natural gas, which supplies a quarter of the energy used by Americans, has more than doubled in the past year, and demand is going to continue to rise. Demand will rise about 40 percent over the next 20 years. This is significant. This dynamic is something which we as policymakers need to be aware of and we need to work with that reality. About a quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity. The rest is to manufacture plastics, cars, computers, medical equipment, and all sorts of products, even bottled water. Those bottles are made with natural gas. This week, the price of natural gas was $6.15 per million Btu. We think about that and we may not have anything to compare it to, but let me tell you, Mr. President, in countries that we compete with for jobs, that we compete with for manufacturing, places such as Russia, natural gas is $1.25 per million Btu's. It is $6.15 here to $1.25 there. Look at the comparisons around the world. For whatever reason, we are paying more for natural gas, and it is putting the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. We see transportation costs have doubled. We know how important trucking and other transportation is in this country. That is overall in the economy. But when we look at transportation costs for a family, the average household with children will spend about $3,815 on fuel this year. That is a lot of money. There again, that is going to increase by about 100 percent as compared to 5 or 6 years ago. The people in my State and the people around the country certainly are feeling the squeeze. If you book an airline ticket today, it is probably going to be 11 percent higher, and a big piece of that is the cost of jet fuel. One of the last couple of points I wish to mention about this legislation is that it is a compromise. It is a compromise in maybe the best sense of the word. We have a lot of competing interests, a lot of good ideas that have come into this discussion. Many of those ideas were included either in whole or in part in this legislation. This bill will open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico, and it lifts production bans in lease area 181. Again, I think that is the right policy at the right time. At the same time, it bans drilling within 125 miles, and that is good until 2022. Again, I think that makes sense. Congress is trying to be very sensitive to various States' needs, trying to respect those needs and those desires. We are attempting to do that, and I think we are accomplishing that in this bill. Back to natural gas, lease area 181 in this bill will add about 5.83 trillion cubic feet, and that is a lot of natural gas. Right now, we use about 23 trillion cubic feet a year. So this is a significant help over time. It will take a couple, 3 years before that actually hits the market, but it will help. Also, it will produce about 1.26 billion barrels of oil. The last point I would make is that this is a narrowly tailored bill. But there is one person who I think has shown complete tenacity in trying to get us to where we are today, where we will be Monday, and that is Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. She has been amazing. Of course, her State has been forever altered by Hurricane Katrina. Certainly, we join her in saying we want Louisiana to come back stronger than ever. New Orleans is one of the great American cities, it is one of the cultural centers of this country, and we want it to come back stronger than ever. Sometimes we forget how important that New Orleans area is to the entire country. It is one of the largest ports in the United States, and the fact that it is sitting right at the mouth of the Mississippi is critically important to the entire midsection of the country. If you live west of the Appalachians or east of the Rockies, you are impacted by what happens in New Orleans because that whole system, that entire Mississippi River basin or watershed, all the rainwater, all the floods--everything--eventually goes down the Mississippi. If the Mississippi is not functioning correctly down near New Orleans, it has a very adverse impact on flood control, on agriculture, on industry, on hydroelectric power, and on any number of things up and down this entire watershed, which is the largest watershed in North America. I thank Senator Landrieu for her tenacity, for the example she set for all of us in fighting for her State and fighting for her country in a time when we need her leadership. She has shown that time and time again. I bet every Member of this body at some point or another has spoken with Senator Mary Landrieu about how important it is to rebuild the gulf coast area and Louisiana specifically. She has done a fantastic job. Even if I disagreed with this policy, which I don't, out of respect for her and the great work she has done, I would support her legislation because I know how important it is to her. The bottom line is, Louisiana is one of the 50 States. It is a sister State. We came to the aid of New York after 9/11, and we should have. We have come to the aid of many States in specific regions after disasters and catastrophe, and we should. That is part of being one Nation, one people, E pluribus unum. It is time for us to come to the aid of Louisiana. It is a long-term proposition. Louisiana does not have an easy solution where we throw a few dollars at it and it is done. There are major infrastructure investments we have to make there. We also have to make them along the rest of the coastline in Mississippi and Alabama. So I think this is an important first step. As I said, I hope that S. 3711 is part of a larger and smarter U.S. energy policy. I hope next year we will come back and revisit some of these very good ideas the Senators have talked about this week and in the previous months when we have been looking at this lease area 181 bill, because there are a lot of good ideas out there. I know Senator Warner and I have one that would open the entire OCS, and it is something we would love to have included here, but we understand we may have to wait until another time. But there are a lot of good ideas out there, and I think it is time for us to think long term and think about energy policy that makes sense for everybody.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of a very fine person whom President Bush has nominated to be on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. His name is Bobby Shepherd. He will replace a very outstanding circuit court judge named Morris Arnold who is taking senior status. Judge Arnold has become a legal institution in the State of Arkansas and on the Eighth Circuit and in the Federal court system. He has absolutely done a fantastic job during his legal career of serving his country. He has decided to take senior status. I am thrilled President Bush has selected Bobby Shepherd to replace him on the Eighth Circuit. Judge Shepherd has been a U.S. magistrate in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for almost 13 years. One thing I have noticed about Judge Shepherd is, even though I practiced law in Arkansas since 1988, I have never heard one person say a bad word about Judge Bobby Shepherd. He was an elected court judge before he was a magistrate. He prides himself on being able to work out the litigation between or among the parties before the necessity of a trial. That is a great quality for a trial court judge and a Federal magistrate to try to unclog the court system by finding a resolution before you have to go to the expense and the time and the judicial resources of going to trial. Prior to his being a magistrate, he was an elected circuit court judge which is a trial court judge in Arkansas. He served there admirably. He practiced law in private practice for 14 years. He is a University of Arkansas School of Law graduate, and received high honors at the university. He went to college at Ouachita Baptist University, and served our Nation in the U.S. Army Reserve. He is a director of the Boys and Girls Club of El Dorado, AR, and has volunteered through the boys clubs and other organizations for over 20 years in that community. He also happens to be a deacon and trustee of the First Baptist Church in his hometown of El Dorado. I thank my colleagues, especially Senators Specter and Leahy, for their decision to move this nomination swiftly, and also Senator Hatch who chaired the confirmation hearing and did an outstanding job through that process. Senator Lincoln and I were able to be there to introduce him. President Bush made a rare find in nominating Judge Shepherd. He has totally avoided controversy. But one thing about him is, when Judge Arnold announced he was going to take senior status, very quickly a consensus grew around this Federal magistrate down in El Dorado, AR. Democrats and Republicans support him; Independents and Libertarians support him. People in his community, people outside his community, lawyers of all stripes, whether they are plaintiffs lawyers, defense lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, unanimously people think he is the right person to be on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has an outstanding reputation as a fair and studious judge. Around the State I have heard nothing but praise from my colleagues in the legal community of this decision by President Bush. In fact, the American Bar Association rated him unanimously well qualified. When I look at judges, whether they are from Arkansas or other places, I have three criteria: First, are they qualified; second, do they have the proper judicial temperament; and third, do they have the ability to be fair and impartial. He passes all three tests with flying colors. He is eminently qualified. He has proven beyond any doubt that he has the right temperament, and he has proven to all who have ever seen him in action or been before him that he is fair and impartial. I am confident that Judge Shepherd will bring these qualities and many more to the Eighth Circuit. I, as well as Senator Lincoln, heartily endorse this nomination and am proud to be part of this nomination process, and I am certainly proud to give him my vote.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Voting Rights Act. I have in my pocket here a small copy of the U.S. Constitution that Senator Byrd gave me a few months ago. It is something I cherish. In February of 1870, the Constitution was amended with the 15th amendment. It says, in section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2 says: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. That was passed in 1870. Just a few years after the close of the Civil War, the 15th amendment was added to the Constitution. But it took this Congress really 95 years before it acted, in a meaningful way, to implement that second section which allows Congress to implement this law. I am reminded that in the last 50 years we have made a lot of progress when it comes to race relations in this country. We have opened doors. We have provided opportunities. We have changed things. It has really been a remarkable change for the better. However, I think every Senator would acknowledge today that there are still miles that need to be traveled. I know that when Lyndon Johnson rallied the Nation to press for the passage of the Civil Rights Act back in 1965, he said: This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, no hesitation and no compromise with our purpose. We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in. Five months after the march in Selma, AL, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The Voting Rights Act, in that context, in that time, put an end to literacy tests, poll taxes, and other less direct methods to prohibit or discourage people from voting. They were clearly discriminatory tactics used all over this country but in the South particularly. In the South, after the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, African- American registration rose to a record 62 percent within just a few years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. It has been an amazing success. When it was enacted, there were only 300 African-American public officials in this country--only 300. Today, there are over 9,000. And the number of Latino elected officials is over 6,000. So there is no doubt the Voting Rights Act is important, that it has been very effective. There is no doubt that it is one of the most important things Congress has done to equalize and give opportunity to all Americans. It is also--there is no question about it--just as important today as it was four decades ago. I know the NAACP national convention is being held in Washington this week. I know they are very supportive of this. There are countless civil rights groups and organizations that are supportive of this, and they want to renew, reauthorize, and restore this act. I appreciate that, and I respect that. But also, in a broader context, this vote today allows us to stand not just with the NAACP, not just with civil rights groups but to stand with America. We have made, as I said, significant strides. We have done some great things, provided a lot of opportunity, opened a lot of doors. And we still have a few miles to go. One thing I have noticed, as former attorney general of the State of Arkansas, is that over the last few years there has developed a new generation of tactics to prevent people from voting, and some of these are very subtle. Some of these have to do with annexations or even redistricting that could be done for discriminatory purposes or changing the polling place without a lot of notice or making it very difficult for some people to get to. The Voting Rights Act is important today to make sure those practices end as well. It is hard for some of us to admit today--because we have made so much progress--that we still need this important legislation. I think everybody here wishes we did not. We would love to say we have accomplished the task and that we have equal voting opportunity for every American. We would all love to say that. But in reality, we know we do not, and we know we must continue the struggle. I am also reminded, in closing, what Woodrow Wilson said about this country. One time he said: America is the only idealistic nation in the world. I think he was right about that. We are an idealistic nation. We always strive for the better. In fact, we strive for perfection. We try to reach the ideal. We do not always get there. Certainly, the treatment of African Americans through the history of this Nation is a clear example of that. We do not always get to the ideal. We do not always get to the goal we set for ourselves. But one thing that makes America different from a lot of countries is that we try. We try. And we go the extra mile to try to make opportunities for people in this country and to try to live up to the ideals of our Founding Fathers and those ideals on which this Nation was founded. The Voting Rights Act is a very important part of that. I thank my colleagues for listening today, and I thank my colleagues for their votes today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act of 2006, H.R. 4472. I say that as an Arkansan because I know people in Arkansas want to protect our children. I say that as a former attorney general because I know we worked with John Walsh and other people who dealt with missing and exploited children all over the country. We tried to be as active as possible in the attorney general's office in Arkansas. Thirdly, and most important, I say it as a father because I want my children protected like everybody else here and everybody around the country who wants their children protected. Senator Frist made a statement a few moments ago about child predators on the Internet. It is a real problem. It is something we in the Congress are trying to deal with in this legislation. It is something we need to keep focused on even though we passed this legislation. We need to keep focused on it so we can make sure that what we have on the books works. I am very proud of the Senate tonight for considering this. I am very proud of the Congress for the way they have handled this and moved this through the process. I also wish to say another word. There is a program around the country called Code Adam. Actually, an Arkansas company started this-- Wal-Mart--several years ago, where they have a little blue sticker on the door of every Wal-Mart. They do a Code Adam procedure in the store if a child is reported missing in the store. I cannot tell you how many children have been saved in Wal-Marts but also in other retail stores that use Code Adam. Wal-Mart has given this idea to anybody who wants to do it. It has worked and it has probably saved dozens, if not hundreds, of children. It is named after Adam Walsh because he was abducted and murdered several years ago. Lastly, my friend, Colleen Nick, whom I met through my time in the attorney general's office in Arkansas--her daughter Morgan Nick was abducted from a ballfield in Alma, AR, several years ago when Morgan was about 5 years old. Colleen has devoted her life to missing children issues. So I am proud that this passed tonight for Morgan and Colleen and the Nick family because I have talked to them and spent a lot of time with the Nicks. I know the void it creates in a parent's life and in a family's life when one of their children is missing and never found. Mr. President, I am very proud to support this legislation. I believe it makes America better, stronger, and it puts some teeth in the law that we need. It is something of which we can all be proud.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we lost a great Arkansan this week and also a great American. I rise today to give tribute to Winthrop Paul Rockefeller. When I think of Win Paul, I think of a man who demonstrated throughout the course of his life great faith, courage, and humility. He was a friend to me, but he was a friend to thousands of people around our State and around our Nation. He set a high standard for public service and for philanthropy and a high standard for leadership. In fact, he is one of those people who, regardless of his station in life, even had he been born without a penny to his name, would have been selfless, and he would have lived a sacrificial life just as he did. He has done so many great things for the State of Arkansas, for the country and for the world. Let me just name a few of the charities that he has been deeply involved with: The Boy Scouts of America, Project ChildSave, the Arkansas Literary Festival, the President's Council on Rural America, the Bill Fish Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the Arkansas Coalition for Juvenile Justice--to name just a few. He has helped so many people along the way. He has inspired people with the time he spent with them but also with his generosity. I experienced that when I was about 10 or so years old. My father was the newly elected Governor of Arkansas and Win Paul walked in, a young man, and on the spot he bought for the Governor's mansion and gave to the State of Arkansas a new stove for the kitchen because he thought that Liza Jane Ashley, the cook at Governor's mansion, should not have to labor over that old, dilapidated stove she had. That is the way he was. We will never know the thousand acts of kindness he did for people. I have to single out one organization that he loved so much and he is closely identified with in Arkansas and that is the Boy Scouts. He was involved in that organization for 30 years, and he led by example. The Boy Scouts' motto is ``Be prepared.'' I think that Win Paul Rockefeller was always prepared to help his fellow man. He was always looking for ways to be of service. The Boy Scouts' slogan is ``Do a good turn daily,'' and certainly he lived by that and lived by a very deep faith. He demonstrated his faith every single day that we all knew him. Like my colleague from Arkansas, we extend our prayers to Lisenne, their children, and to Jay Rockefeller and the entire Rockefeller family and all of their friends and all the people they have touched. We just want to say we know that he is in a better place. We know that he has been greeted at the Pearly Gates with open arms. We will truly miss Winthrop Paul Rockefeller. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment I offered to the 2007 Defense authorization bill that would be very beneficial to the members of our Reserve Component. The amendment would award them 15 days of paid leave at the end of their deployment, provided they have been deployed more than 6 months and have been deployed in a combat zone. The members of the Reserves and National Guard face a different situation and different challenges when they return from combat than do those on active duty because they return to civilian life and civilian jobs almost immediately. In many cases I believe it happens too soon, primarily for financial reasons. The need to return to their jobs as soon as possible means Reservists and Guardsmen have little or no time to make what can be a difficult adjustment. Combat experiences may never be forgotten, especially by those who are not professional soldiers, but a chance to begin to do so, to talk to people if that seems appropriate, would be very helpful. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a very real disability. We must do whatever we can to help our citizen soldiers avoid it. And to help those who get it despite our efforts. The experiences of our combat soldiers are stressful at best, debilitating at worst. I believe 2 weeks to readjust, to spend time with their families, and to make whatever preparations are necessary would be tremendously helpful and very well deserved. These men and women have left their families and their jobs to serve our country overseas for extended periods at great personal sacrifice. Two weeks of paid leave would relieve the financial pressure to return to work immediately. I believe not only the soldiers would benefit, but so would the employers and coworkers. They would at long last regain an employee who has had time to adjust and is ready to become a productive worker again. So the benefits would not go solely to the soldiers and their families. This is an important amendment, one that would help soldiers, their families, and their communities around the nation. I believe it deserves to be included in the Defense authorization bill, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor William ``J'' Thompson of Highland, AR. J Thompson works as a lineman for the Southern Electric Cooperative, and since 2004, he has also been a first responder and truck captain for the Highland Volunteer Fire Department. On Christmas Eve, 2005, J Thompson responded to an emergency call from the Highland Police Department. A young man had been stopped by a police officer and had admitted to taking several tranquilizers. Shortly thereafter, he lost consciousness and was unresponsive to the officer. When Mr. Thompson arrived on the scene, the young man had stopped breathing. He was pulled from the vehicle, and it was discovered that he had no pulse. At this point, Mr. Thompson administered CPR, and the individual started breathing and regained a pulse. Without the heroic actions of J Thompson, this young man would not be alive today. My home State of Arkansas is fortunate to have men of his caliber volunteering their time and expertise to their communities. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding William ``J'' Thompson and all the remarkable volunteer firemen for their selfless commitment to safety and humanitarian efforts in our country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor SSG Curtis Haines of Hope, AR. He is a member of the Arkansas Army National Guard's Company A, 1-153rd Infantry of the 39th Brigade Combat Team based in Prescott, AR. For his heroic service in Iraq, Staff Sergeant Haines was recently presented the Soldier's Medal for Bravery at a ceremony in the Prescott High School auditorium. On May 6, 2004, at a military checkpoint in Baghdad, a car bomb explosion occurred. An Iraqi citizen was seriously injured, on fire, and trapped in a burning vehicle. Without regard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Haines rescued the man from his vehicle, carried him to safety, and administered medical aid. Because of his heroic actions, Staff Sergeant Haines ultimately saved the man's life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Staff Sergeant Haines on receiving this well-deserved honor. Also, please join me in thanking all of our brave men and women in uniform for their service. They risk their lives every day to protect our freedoms and deserve our respect and support for the sacrifices they have made and continue to make for our country. Private First Class Nicholas R. Cournoyer

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the life and the courage of Hugh Patterson, who died last week at the age of 91. Mr. Patterson was the publisher of the Arkansas Gazette in 1957 when the Arkansas National Guard was called up to prevent nine young Blacks from enrolling at Central High School in Little Rock. This hugely divisive issue not only had to be reported on in the Gazette, it had to be evaluated on the editorial page. Mr. Patterson's initial reaction was the right one; support desegregation. He later recalled that he said, ``Well, of course, it's got to be recognized that the Supreme Court decision was the only decision that could have been made. We have to recognize that this is a transitional time in terms of public policy and it will, perhaps, take some time for that to be realized, but there's just no option to this. It's a fundamental matter.'' Mr. Patterson was the paper's first publisher, responsible for policy as well as business, but he was not the only one making major editorial decisions. He had to help convince the owner, his father-in-law, J.N. Heiskell, and he did. The reaction to the newspaper's stand for desegregation was severe. There were boycotts against advertisers and mobs out to prevent delivery trucks from delivering papers. Circulation fell. The financial losses were significant, and harmful on a larger scale because Mr. Patterson's philosophy was that profits should be put back into the paper, which he saw as a public service to the State. The Gazette won two Pulitzer Prizes for its coverage in 1957 and they were well deserved. As today's Democrat-Gazette said last week, ``Dante reserved a special place in his Inferno for those who would stay neutral in times of moral crisis. No one need bother looking for the Arkansas Gazette there. Fully aware that his paper had much to lose, Hugh Patterson never hesitated to stake it all on what he knew to be right.'' Mr. Patterson grew up in Pine Bluff and learned the printing business. After serving in the Army Air Corps in World War II, he joined the Gazette in 1946. He became publisher in 1948 and stayed in that job for 38 years. There was much more to his career there than the events of 1957, and to fill in those details I ask that his obituary from the Democrat-Gazette be printed after my remarks. Arkansas is much the better for his voice in a time of crisis and his many other contributions at the helm of the Gazette for so many years. The material follows. [From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, May 30, 2006] Hugh Patterson, Chief of Arkansas Gazette for 38 years, Dies at 91 (By Noel E. Oman) Hugh B. Patterson Jr., the longtime publisher of the former Arkansas Gazette, died Monday. He was 91. Patterson was publisher of the Gazette from November 1948 until December 1986, when the newspaper was sold to Gannett Co. Inc. Patterson's 38 years directing the ``oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi'' began in the era of the mechanical typesetting machine and lasted into the age of computer-generated print. His tenure coincided with Little Rock's public school desegregation crisis in 1957. The Gazette won two Pulitzer Prizes in 1958, one to the newspaper for public service and the other to Executive Editor Harry S. Ashmore for editorial writing. ``This first thing I think of, as you might guess, is the 1957 school crisis, and the Gazette's performance through that period,'' said Roy Reed, professor emeritus of journalism at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Reed was a reporter at the Gazette for eight years, later joining The New York Times as a national and foreign correspondent. ``It's not fully appreciated outside of a very small group the role Hugh Patterson had. He was absolutely vital to leading the paper to the position it held: Obey the law and the court decision,'' Reed said. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Publisher Walter E. Hussman Jr. said Monday that Patterson should be remembered for his leadership of the Gazette ``during its greatest years,'' in the late 1950s. ``It was a difficult time, and he certainly responded,'' Hussman said. Al Neuharth, who founded USA Today and helped build the Gannett newspaper empire that purchased the Gazette, said he was sorry to hear of Patterson's death. ``He was considered by all of us who knew him as a real Southern gentleman, real dedicated newspaper person and I considered him a good friend,'' Neuharth said. ``He did a lot for the state of Arkansas.'' Patterson was born on Feb. 8, 1915, in Cotton Plant, Miss. He came to Arkansas with his family in 1917. He was educated in the public schools of Pine Bluff and at Henderson State Teachers College, now Henderson State University, in Arkadelphia. He also did special studies in graphic arts and advertising in Washington, D.C., and New York. He married the former Louise Heiskell of Little Rock on March 29, 1944. His wife was the daughter of J.N. Heiskell, who was president and editor of the Gazette from 1902 until his death in 1972. The Pattersons had two sons, Carrick H. Patterson and Ralph B. Patterson, both of Little Rock. Ralph Patterson said Monday that his father emphasized putting profits back into the newspaper. ``That was very important to him: That the paper not be a cash cow, but a public service to the state.'' Before World War II, Patterson worked primarily in the commercial printing business in Pine Bluff, Little Rock, New York and Washington. His first job in the field was at Adams Lithographic and Printing Co. of Pine Bluff when ``I was about 14 or 15, I suppose,'' Patterson recalled in a 2000 interview with Roy Reed, who is also director of the Arkansas Gazette Project at the University of Arkansas. The project is an effort to collect and preserve the newspaper's history. ``The Depression was coming on and they had to cut down on staff some... so I melted type metal and washed the platen presses, and I was the shipping clerk,'' Patterson said. After dropping out of Henderson State because his family didn't have enough money, Patterson purchased his first car, a 1931 Chevrolet for $75, on credit, and traveled the roads of south Arkansas and north Louisiana selling printing supplies for the Smith Co., another Pine Bluff printing firm, according to the Reed interview. In 1936, he moved to Little Rock to work for Democrat Printing and Lithograph Co., where he earned $20 a week. Patterson served in the Army Air Corps in World War II, for the most part, in Mobile, Ala., where he specialized in supply and maintenance management. He left the service with the rank of major. Patterson pondered forming a management consulting company when the war ended. But during a weekend trip to Little Rock, he had dinner with his father-in-law, who appreciated his printing background. Heiskell, whose son had died in the war, had a proposition. ``Mr. Heiskell said, `You are the only one with related experience and as soon as you can get out, I'd like for you to come to the paper,''' Patterson recalled in the Reed interview. Patterson joined the Gazette as national advertising manager in 1946. Two years later, Heiskell made him the newspaper's first publisher, responsible for policy as well as the business. Before that, the Gazette had a business manager to run the business and an editor who was responsible for newspaper policy. James O. Powell, the Gazette's editorial page editor from 1959-1986, said Patterson recruited him from the Tampa Tribune. ``He was an excellent publisher, a good businessman, who knew the newspaper industry well indeed,'' Powell said. Patterson ``knew well the pursuit of the public interest using the newspaper.'' On the business side, Patterson consolidated the ownership of the Gazette under the Heiskell family and successfully fought off an attempt by financier Witt Stephens, who owned Gazette stock, to obtain a controlling interest, a move that Patterson enjoyed retelling to Reed. ``He thought I was a yokel,'' Patterson recalled, laughing. ``I suppose that was the best poker hand I ever played.'' Patterson, relying on his experience in commercial printing, also developed financial controls that showed the relationship between costs and revenue, which he found few in the industry knew. ``It was absolutely new,'' Patterson told Reed. ``And so I developed this thing, and I wrote a paper on it, and it was adopted by the Institute of Newspaper Controllers and Finance Officers.'' The Gazette's controller, Jack Olsen, a former Internal Revenue Service accountant, fine-tuned Patterson's accounting system. Olsen eventually went to work for the St. Petersburg Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, using the budgeting process Patterson developed. Patterson also organized the newspaper into more sections, added stock tables, more news services and beefed up the Sunday newspaper with the addition of color comics and Parade Magazine. On policy, it was Patterson who set the Gazette on the course that won it the Pulitzer. Patterson was a regional chairman of the National Council for Public Schools when he was interviewed by a reporter for The Associated Press about implementing the May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which found that segregation in schools was inherently unequal and in violation of the Constitution. ``I said, 'Well, of course, it's got to be recognized that the Supreme Court decision was the only decision that could have been made,'' Patterson recalled. ``We have to recognize that this is a transitional time in terms of public policy and it will, perhaps, take some time for that to be realized, but there's just no option to this. It's a fundamental matter.''' A wire service story containing those quotes appeared in the Gazette. Upon returning to Arkansas, Executive Editor Ashmore wondered whether Heiskell would fire Patterson, Patterson said. About a week later, the subject came up with Heiskell, who was over at the Patterson home to visit his grandchildren. Patterson said he told him, ``Well, you know, deep down we're talking about your grandchildren's generation. And we feel that we can't misrepresent these issues to them. We can't bring them up feeling that what is inevitable is not true.'' ``That was the last time it was ever discussed,'' Patterson told Reed. ``And when Ashmore heard about that, for the first time, he was able to deal more realistically with the question textually in the editorials.'' Jim Johnson, a former associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Democratic Party nominee for governor in 1966--and no favorite of the Arkansas Gazette's editorial page--said his battles with the Gazette over segregation amounted to a ``political vendetta.'' But he said he always respected and admired Patterson's civility and tenacity. ``He was a master at his craft and a worthy, worthy adversary. He was keenly effective. You had to admire it. As my daddy would say, he learned me something.'' Arkansas Times columnist and former Gazette employee Ernie Dumas said Patterson never really got credit for his role in 1957 and 1958, critical years for the Gazette and the state. ``Everybody has also attributed the heroism and courage to Heiskell and Ashmore. Hugh played a very strong role in bringing Harry and Heiskell around, that despite the peril to the Gazette, they should take a stand against Orval Faubus.'' By the mid-1980s, Patterson and the Gazette began feeling pressure from the Arkansas Democrat, a newspaper that the Walter E. Hussman family had acquired in 1974 and converted from an afternoon daily to a morning newspaper to compete head-to-head with the Gazette. In the early 1980s, he met with representatives of Times-Mirror Corp. and the New York Times Co. in an effort to sell the paper to a company that could allow the Gazette to continue publishing. Unable to find a suitor, the Gazette filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Democrat of predatory practices. The Democrat contended that it resorted to innovative but legal business practices because the Gazette was the dominant paper. In March 1986, a jury found in favor of the Democrat. Patterson sold the Gazette to the Gannett Co. a short time later, and often professed unhappiness with the changes the national chain made to the state's ``gray lady.'' On Oct. 18, 1991, Gannett shut down the Gazette and sold the Gazette's assets and name to Little Rock Newspapers Inc., now called Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Inc. The company is a corporate subsidiary of WEHCO Media Inc. whose chief executive officer, Walter E. Hussman Jr., is publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which began publishing under that name on Oct. 19, 1991. Throughout his newspaper career, Patterson was active in civic affairs. He was a member of the Little Rock Planning Commission for 20 years. In 1957, Patterson helped initiate the city manager form of government for Little Rock. He also helped create the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, now known as Metroplan. Patterson was awarded the Freedom House Freedom Award in 1958 and the Arkansas Council of the National Conference of Christians and Jews Humanitarian Award in 1987. Also in 1987, Patterson was named Arkansas Journalist of the Year by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Patterson also served as president of the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, to introduce legislation to reform and raise the corporate average fuel economy standard for the first time since its inception over 30 years ago. In 1975 this body passed, as a part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the very first fuel economy standards for our passenger car fleet, setting a standard that all manufacturers must achieve 27.5 miles per gallon. This was done in response to the first oil embargo and the energy crisis of the early 1970s. Americans realized for the first time that we as a nation must set and achieve attainable goals for energy conservation, not only for our economic security but also for our national security. At that time, the fuel economy of passenger cars averaged around 14 miles per gallon. Ten years after CAFE was enacted, the fuel economy of passenger cars had almost doubled, saving an estimated 2.8 million barrels of oil a day. There can be no doubts as to the benefits of the original CAFE standard. Still 20 years after reaching this peak around 1985, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger car fleet has stagnated. Some have even argued the fleet of vehicles entering the marketplace today gets less fuel economy than those models in 1985. While fuel efficient technology has improved over the years, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger fleet has not. Also today, our dependence on oil is greater than ever before. This dependence has complicated decisions we make as a country, such as foreign policy decisions, and as individuals, such as whether or not to fill up your gas tank or buy groceries. I believe we must do better for families in Arkansas and around the Nation. We must protect our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and uncomplicating our foreign policy decision-making in oil-rich regions. We must protect the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We must reduce the cost of transportation for consumers. We must begin implementing more stringent CAFE standards now before these problems worsen. Gasoline is over 70 cents higher than this time last year, and the number of miles driven by every American over the age of 16 has risen over 60 percent since 1970--and is continuing to climb at a rapid pace. This is why I have joined my colleague and worked in a bipartisan manner to introduce comprehensive CAFE reform. For over 30 years the original CAFE standard has remained in place while a rapidly advancing marketplace and rapidly advancing technology have left it behind. Each time fuel economy standards have been debated in this body, they have been mired in partisan politics resulting in nothing but stalemate. Senator Lott and I are choosing progress over politics with our common sense legislation, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006. The bill will help accomplish our national security and energy conservation goals while preserving motor vehicle safety, American manufacturing jobs, and consumer choice for vehicles. Specifically, it will clarify the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to raise and reform CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary to begin the reform process within 60 days in addition to requiring the Secretary to complete an expedited rulemaking to immediately amend the current CAFE standard before a reformed standard takes effect. For the first time, it will require the Secretary to consider greenhouse gas emissions when promulgating a CAFE standard as well as require the Secretary to obtain comments from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the impact of any new rule on the environment. Our legislation also gives automobile manufacturers more flexibility in the way they can apply CAFE credits in order to help them preserve American jobs. It preserves the 18-month lead time required before the Secretary can issue more stringent CAFE standards. It also allows the Secretary to use the fines collected for violations of the CAFE standard for research and development of fuel saving technologies and to conduct CAFE rulemakings. Finally, our bill provides a backstop fuel economy average which no manufacturer can go below, regardless of their fleet mix. There is no silver bullet in accomplishing our national security and energy goals, and we must seek short-term alternatives in addition to long-term solutions. CAFE reform is one part of a long-term solution to reduce our dependence on oil, but it is one that can have lasting impact. Still, I believe for the long-term security of our country, this is as good a place as any to start. We must start now. I thank my colleague from the Commerce Committee, Senator Lott, for his hard work on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that this reform becomes law.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, to introduce legislation to reform and raise the corporate average fuel economy standard for the first time since its inception over 30 years ago. In 1975 this body passed, as a part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the very first fuel economy standards for our passenger car fleet, setting a standard that all manufacturers must achieve 27.5 miles per gallon. This was done in response to the first oil embargo and the energy crisis of the early 1970s. Americans realized for the first time that we as a nation must set and achieve attainable goals for energy conservation, not only for our economic security but also for our national security. At that time, the fuel economy of passenger cars averaged around 14 miles per gallon. Ten years after CAFE was enacted, the fuel economy of passenger cars had almost doubled, saving an estimated 2.8 million barrels of oil a day. There can be no doubts as to the benefits of the original CAFE standard. Still 20 years after reaching this peak around 1985, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger car fleet has stagnated. Some have even argued the fleet of vehicles entering the marketplace today gets less fuel economy than those models in 1985. While fuel efficient technology has improved over the years, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger fleet has not. Also today, our dependence on oil is greater than ever before. This dependence has complicated decisions we make as a country, such as foreign policy decisions, and as individuals, such as whether or not to fill up your gas tank or buy groceries. I believe we must do better for families in Arkansas and around the Nation. We must protect our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and uncomplicating our foreign policy decision-making in oil-rich regions. We must protect the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We must reduce the cost of transportation for consumers. We must begin implementing more stringent CAFE standards now before these problems worsen. Gasoline is over 70 cents higher than this time last year, and the number of miles driven by every American over the age of 16 has risen over 60 percent since 1970--and is continuing to climb at a rapid pace. This is why I have joined my colleague and worked in a bipartisan manner to introduce comprehensive CAFE reform. For over 30 years the original CAFE standard has remained in place while a rapidly advancing marketplace and rapidly advancing technology have left it behind. Each time fuel economy standards have been debated in this body, they have been mired in partisan politics resulting in nothing but stalemate. Senator Lott and I are choosing progress over politics with our common sense legislation, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006. The bill will help accomplish our national security and energy conservation goals while preserving motor vehicle safety, American manufacturing jobs, and consumer choice for vehicles. Specifically, it will clarify the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to raise and reform CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary to begin the reform process within 60 days in addition to requiring the Secretary to complete an expedited rulemaking to immediately amend the current CAFE standard before a reformed standard takes effect. For the first time, it will require the Secretary to consider greenhouse gas emissions when promulgating a CAFE standard as well as require the Secretary to obtain comments from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the impact of any new rule on the environment. Our legislation also gives automobile manufacturers more flexibility in the way they can apply CAFE credits in order to help them preserve American jobs. It preserves the 18-month lead time required before the Secretary can issue more stringent CAFE standards. It also allows the Secretary to use the fines collected for violations of the CAFE standard for research and development of fuel saving technologies and to conduct CAFE rulemakings. Finally, our bill provides a backstop fuel economy average which no manufacturer can go below, regardless of their fleet mix. There is no silver bullet in accomplishing our national security and energy goals, and we must seek short-term alternatives in addition to long-term solutions. CAFE reform is one part of a long-term solution to reduce our dependence on oil, but it is one that can have lasting impact. Still, I believe for the long-term security of our country, this is as good a place as any to start. We must start now. I thank my colleague from the Commerce Committee, Senator Lott, for his hard work on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that this reform becomes law.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as President Bush prepares for his meeting with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, I rise to address important human rights concerns in that country. Although hundreds of political prisoners have been freed due in part to pressure brought by the United States, it is believed that as many as 50 political prisoners remain in Azeri jails. Prior to the November elections in Azerbaijan, a group of businessmen and government officials were arrested on charges of planning a coup. Among this group, there were former Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev, and his brother, Rafiq Aliyev. Because of his well-known opposition to Russia's increased influence in Azerbaijan and his pro- Western stance, in addition to the antimonopoly initiatives he led prior to his arrest, many fear that Mr. Aliyev's and his colleague's arrests were politically motivated. They are being held in the pretrial detention center at the National Security Ministry, which is notorious for its poor conditions and harsh treatment of prisoners. Human rights organizations in this country and in Europe have expressed concern about the violations of the due process rights of the detainees in connection with this case. Farhad Aliyev is a cardiac patient suffering from hypertension and hypertrophy. In a recent fact-finding mission, the International League for Human Rights has verified that Mr. Aliyev has been denied proper medical care and medicine for his heart condition. As recently as this week, the International League for Human Rights has indicated that Mr. Aliyev may have undergone another health crisis and his lawyers believe he may have suffered a heart attack. I urge President Bush and this administration to remind President Aliyev of Azerbaijan's obligations before the international community and the importance of human rights in Azerbaijan and to request Mr. Aliyev's immediate release on bail in light of his need for adequate medical care. The case of Mr. Aliyev may be the litmus test of the Azeri government's good will and commitment to human rights. I ask unanimous consent that recent newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I commend Senators Collins and Lieberman on their great work on this underlying bill. I am on the Homeland Security Committee with them, and it is always great to work with them. They work in a very nonpartisan and bipartisan fashion. Also, I wish to thank Senator Voinovich and Senator Johnson for their leadership on the Ethics Committee on which I also serve. They have demonstrated what being real Senators is all about because they take their responsibility on ethics very seriously, and I am here today to support their position on this amendment and to oppose this amendment. The Ethics Committee works with diligence and without politics. I have only been on this committee for a little more than a year, and I will be the first to tell you that there is a problem with the House Ethics Committee. I think everybody agrees on that. But also, I am adamant to say that there is really not a problem at all on the Senate Ethics Committee because we take our responsibilities very seriously. We are there to protect the Senate, the integrity of this institution, and, just as the Constitution says, we are there to oversee the behavior of our colleagues. We do that in a very confidential manner. I must say that it is sometimes frustrating to outside forces who look and see us, and they may file something and they may not get an immediate response. I remember when I was starting out practicing law in Arkansas, a lawyer told me: Never try your case in the newspaper. I think that is very true when it comes to the world of ethics inside the Senate. If we allow the confidentiality to go away, then, in my view, we would be opening a Pandora's box. I can just imagine--again, in today's realistic political world--I can just imagine what it would be like if someone were to file a complaint and the next thing you know, there would be radio ads, television ads, Internet ads, blogs, et cetera, out there saying that so-and-so has ethics charges pending against him. The Senate Ethics Committee, although not perfect, is a much better option than the Office of Public Integrity. Again, I believe that is one of the reasons this amendment or something very similar to this was defeated in the committee on a bipartisan basis. I also notice that there are groups around Washington, DC, who are very supportive of the Office of Public Integrity. Basically, one of their complaints is that when they file a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, the complaint seems to go in a black hole. In fact, I have an e-mail that says we--the Ethics Committee--ignore outside complaints. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am here to tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We consider all the complaints, wherever they come from, very seriously. We look at them, and we act on outside complaints, complaints that come from outside this body. We have spent a lot of time--hours and hours, in fact--on complaints that originated outside this body. Also, I think some of these groups say they acknowledge that the House has a problem with their Ethics Committee, but they say that both committees are in need of repair. Really, they can't point to anything in the Senate Ethics Committee that has gone wrong or any way that we failed on the Senate Ethics Committee. There is a reason for that. You can look back over the last 20 years, and you will see a number of high profile, very difficult, very tough, and oftentimes very complicated investigations the Senate Ethics Committee has undertaken which have led to some sort of admonishment of their own Members in the Senate. The last thing I wanted to say, is this: Being on the Ethics Committee, every day when I walk in that room, I ask myself, what did I do to make Harry Reid mad? Why did he put me on this committee? Because I will tell you, as the chairman will or as the cochairman will tell you, it is not an easy assignment. In fact, it is grueling. One thing we need to understand is that oftentimes, to get down to the facts and to get down to the truth, it takes time. It takes a lot of time. Sometimes you have witnesses who are no longer here. Some of these witnesses live in other parts of the country and even, in some cases, other parts of the world. There are meetings and meetings and meetings on these allegations. One thing I love about the Senate Ethics Committee is the high level of trust among the members in that committee. There is a culture of integrity in that committee. As I said, even though it is no fun to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it has worked very well. Because of the committee's policy of keeping its meetings closed and confidential, it allows a freedom within the Ethics Committee to really drill down and get into details and ask hard questions, questions that you might be afraid to ask in a public forum because you may not know the answer, and that answer may be very embarrassing and just by asking the question, it could turn into an allegation. The process we have right now--although it is closed, although it is confidential--works very well. In a lot of ways it is similar to turning the case over to the jury, where you allow the jury to go back into deliberations and hash it out however they want to do it. In the end, they come back and they do justice. I think our Founding Fathers got it right in article I, section 5, paragraph 2 when they said that: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. I think our Founding Fathers expected us to do this and not set up a third party office to do this. Again, I rise to join my two chairmen, the chairman and cochairman on the Ethics Committee, in opposing this amendment, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I would like to share with you Garland Rash's inspiring story of bravery and determination that saw him use his remarkable talent for woodwork to serve his country during the dark days of World War II. Born in 1924, Garland was raised in Drew County, AR, where he put himself through school and developed an interest in carpentry. Like so many other Americans, he was horrified at the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and immediately set out to aid in the country's war effort. This led him to California, where he dedicated himself to building wooden racks that could be used to raise ships out of the water to be repaired. Garland soon realized during a visit home on Mother's Day in 1943 that he wanted to do more for his county. That summer, he enlisted in the Navy and underwent a grueling period in boot camp. Garland was then assigned to the 116th Naval Battalion as part of the construction unit of the Navy, nicknamed the ``Seebees.'' After more training in Rhode Island and Bay St. Louis, Garland was shipped to Pearl Harbor where he, alongside many other talented carpenters, was part of a covert operation to equip U.S. military planes with a more advanced type of engine. While there, Garland decided to collect several pieces of wood and Plexiglas from the debris of the 1941 bombing. During his nonworking hours, Garland used these pieces to fashion two wooden boxes, using parachute scraps for the lining and Plexiglas from windshields to create a beautiful inlaid mosaic pattern on the lid. While in Pearl Harbor, a young marine named Bob Crosby, brother of famed singer Bing Crosby, was struck by the workmanship of these boxes. He asked Garland whether he would be willing to sell one to him and Garland agreed. Though Garland never saw him again, Bob Crosby would go on to become an accomplished actor and musician through the 1950s. Garland continued his distinguished military service in Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Japan where he and his fellow American troops accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in 1945. After returning to the United States in December of that year, Garland resumed his relationship with Kathleen Lawson, a woman he had dated while on leave from the Navy during the war. They were married on March 1, 1946. Today, their home in Monticello, AR, is filled with loving pictures of several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Remarkably, Garland managed to hold on to the other wooden box that he carved from the rubble of Pearl Harbor and keeps it today as a remembrance of the war and his service. Looking at this box today, I, like Bob Crosby so many years ago, am amazed by the extraordinary craftsmanship, and I am awestruck knowing its historical significance. Garland, like so many World War II veterans, is truly a part of the ``greatest American generation'' and I hope you will join me in paying tribute to his extraordinary service to this Nation.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business and that the time I use be charged against my time postcloture.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Leahy. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this week marks the 6-month anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, destroying lives and dreams along the way. Thousands upon thousands of homes were also ruined, and today they remain simply a heap of debris. I saw this devastation firsthand a few weeks ago when, as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we traveled to Gulfport and New Orleans for field hearings to see what resources are necessary to help the region recover from the largest natural disaster in our history. In fact, this photograph was taken by one of the press people who was on that trip. So we saw this scene firsthand. Alison Vekshin of Stephens Media took this photo. I remind my colleagues that Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed 205,330 homes in Louisiana. It completely destroyed 68,729 homes in Mississippi. And 363 homes were completely destroyed in Alabama. For many of these families who lost everything, a place to live would offer opportunity for them to go back to work and begin rebuilding their lives. I was told by local and State leaders that housing is the catalyst to get businesses open, to get people back to work, to pump money back into the local economy, and to restore the infrastructure that once existed. Many people along the gulf coast who lost their houses have also lost hope. In Arkansas, we have a place called Hope where 10,777 manufactured homes sit on an airfield. These homes--ordered by FEMA and paid for by FEMA--now sit in a FEMA- leased site, only to be restricted from use in the gulf region because of a FEMA-imposed rule that prevents them from being located in a floodplain. FEMA is now accepting bids to gravel the area where the homes are sitting on dirt, costing taxpayers another $4 to $7 million. In addition, FEMA is buying a specially designed jack for each corner of each home to prevent sagging and further damage. These manufactured homes epitomize FEMA's ineptitude in planning, communication, and response. Taxpayers have now spent an estimated $475 million for these homes to sit gridlocked in bureaucracy, even as evacuees are evicted from hotel rooms and thousands of others struggle to find affordable housing. Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas asked FEMA to waive the floodplain restriction that stands in the way between the homeless and a home. But FEMA refused, citing that manufactured homes are ``sitting ducks'' for the next natural disaster. These homes, I have to remind my colleagues, were built to high wind zone 3 specifications, so while they may not withstand the next hurricane--although they may--they will not tumble over during a storm. Now, we are telling FEMA to let hope travel to where it is needed most, from Arkansas to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. My legislation, the Hope Housing Act of 2006, allows manufactured homes bought for Katrina and Rita victims to be located in floodplains, protects FEMA from responsibility if the homes are subsequently flooded, and directs FEMA to publicize this change so people will know they are available. This is a one-time change that I believe is necessary in the face of what I hope will be a one-time disaster. We have people without homes and homes without people. Let's allow the homes to go where they are needed so the people in New Orleans and the gulf coast can return to their communities and help rebuild them. The alternative seems to be to let them sit and deteriorate in Hope, Arkansas. Mr. President, 6 months is too long to allow this nonsense to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense solution that allows hurricane victims a little hope and opportunity for their future. The bottom line is that basically FEMA ordered these homes, paid for these homes, and now they are storing these homes, but their own regulation will not allow them to use them where they are most needed. So what our legislation does is allow FEMA to put these homes down where they are needed to try to get the economic cycle in New Orleans and the gulf coast area going again because right now the cycle is broken. They do not have people down there to work the jobs. They do not have people down there to be consumers. And the reason they do not have people is because they do not have a place to live. So I urge my colleagues to consider helping in this effort. The Hope Housing Act of 2006 is a very commonsense solution for this very critical need.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this week marks the 6-month anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, destroying lives and dreams along the way. Thousands upon thousands of homes were also ruined, and today they remain simply a heap of debris. I saw this devastation firsthand a few weeks ago when, as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we traveled to Gulfport and New Orleans for field hearings to see what resources are necessary to help the region recover from the largest natural disaster in our history. In fact, this photograph was taken by one of the press people who was on that trip. So we saw this scene firsthand. Alison Vekshin of Stephens Media took this photo. I remind my colleagues that Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed 205,330 homes in Louisiana. It completely destroyed 68,729 homes in Mississippi. And 363 homes were completely destroyed in Alabama. For many of these families who lost everything, a place to live would offer opportunity for them to go back to work and begin rebuilding their lives. I was told by local and State leaders that housing is the catalyst to get businesses open, to get people back to work, to pump money back into the local economy, and to restore the infrastructure that once existed. Many people along the gulf coast who lost their houses have also lost hope. In Arkansas, we have a place called Hope where 10,777 manufactured homes sit on an airfield. These homes--ordered by FEMA and paid for by FEMA--now sit in a FEMA- leased site, only to be restricted from use in the gulf region because of a FEMA-imposed rule that prevents them from being located in a floodplain. FEMA is now accepting bids to gravel the area where the homes are sitting on dirt, costing taxpayers another $4 to $7 million. In addition, FEMA is buying a specially designed jack for each corner of each home to prevent sagging and further damage. These manufactured homes epitomize FEMA's ineptitude in planning, communication, and response. Taxpayers have now spent an estimated $475 million for these homes to sit gridlocked in bureaucracy, even as evacuees are evicted from hotel rooms and thousands of others struggle to find affordable housing. Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas asked FEMA to waive the floodplain restriction that stands in the way between the homeless and a home. But FEMA refused, citing that manufactured homes are ``sitting ducks'' for the next natural disaster. These homes, I have to remind my colleagues, were built to high wind zone 3 specifications, so while they may not withstand the next hurricane--although they may--they will not tumble over during a storm. Now, we are telling FEMA to let hope travel to where it is needed most, from Arkansas to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. My legislation, the Hope Housing Act of 2006, allows manufactured homes bought for Katrina and Rita victims to be located in floodplains, protects FEMA from responsibility if the homes are subsequently flooded, and directs FEMA to publicize this change so people will know they are available. This is a one-time change that I believe is necessary in the face of what I hope will be a one-time disaster. We have people without homes and homes without people. Let's allow the homes to go where they are needed so the people in New Orleans and the gulf coast can return to their communities and help rebuild them. The alternative seems to be to let them sit and deteriorate in Hope, Arkansas. Mr. President, 6 months is too long to allow this nonsense to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense solution that allows hurricane victims a little hope and opportunity for their future. The bottom line is that basically FEMA ordered these homes, paid for these homes, and now they are storing these homes, but their own regulation will not allow them to use them where they are most needed. So what our legislation does is allow FEMA to put these homes down where they are needed to try to get the economic cycle in New Orleans and the gulf coast area going again because right now the cycle is broken. They do not have people down there to work the jobs. They do not have people down there to be consumers. And the reason they do not have people is because they do not have a place to live. So I urge my colleagues to consider helping in this effort. The Hope Housing Act of 2006 is a very commonsense solution for this very critical need.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia acknowledged, we have a problem when it comes to the high cost of natural gas. We feel strongly that this bill which we are cosponsoring can be part of the solution. About one-quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity, but the rest is used to manufacture plastics that go into things such as cars, computers, and medical equipment. Fertilizer and pharmaceutical production is highly dependent on natural gas. In fact, for nitrogen fertilizer, a total of 93 percent of the production cost of that fertilizer is the component of natural gas. The price of natural gas--which, by the way, is one-quarter of the energy of this country--has more than doubled in the past year and it is anticipated that over the next 20 years you will see a 40-percent increase for the usage and need of natural gas in the United States. Another thing about natural gas that makes it very different than oil is natural gas is not easy to ship across oceans. Certainly there is some liquid natural gas technology out there, but a vast majority--all but a tiny fraction of the natural gas we use in this country--comes from United States wells, or comes out of Canada. We have a great reserve of natural gas, not only in the Continental United States, not only in Alaska, but also off our shores. Most notably, the one that most people are aware of is in the Gulf of Mexico. Our legislation will allow the Secretary of the Interior to offer natural gas leases as part of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program. Let me say this: As Senator Warner of Virginia said a few moments ago, we are referring only to natural gas. We have been very careful to make sure this bill does not include petroleum or oil. I hope no one will be confused by an earlier draft because we included some references to oil, but we have very carefully taken all of those out of the bill. I think the bill is very clear on that point now, that this refers only to natural gas supply and exploration.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, another very important point, which is the essence of this legislation, goes to the moratorium on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill allows that moratorium to stay in place until the year 2012. It allows coastal States to, either out of that moratorium, if they so choose, or if after that moratorium expires, to opt into continuing that moratorium. It gives States, legislatures, Governors, State officials, elected officials, et cetera, the ability to control some of the things that are going on on their coastlines. I think that is a very important point here because this could be a good revenue source for these States. It could be a good economic boom to some of these States. Certainly we have included revenue sharing, which I think is important to make this work. I am very pleased that Senator Warner and I have been able to work together and come up with what we think is a very commonsense solution, or at least part of a solution, to a very serious problem our country is facing. Arkansas farmers--and I am sure it is true with most other States' farmers as well--had a difficult and disastrous year last year when it came to agriculture. One of the main reasons it has been so hard is their costs have gone up--the high cost of fertilizer and fuel. They use a lot of natural gas when it comes to drying grain, et cetera. The high cost of energy is killing our farmers, and it is certainly hurting our manufacturing sector as well. The high price of natural gas is bad for the economy, but it is also bad for our energy security. That is one thing which I don't think we can overemphasize here today. I think it is critical that we have a high level of energy security for this country. I am proud to join my very distinguished colleague from Virginia to do our very best to offer a solution to help American families and help American businesses. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia acknowledged, we have a problem when it comes to the high cost of natural gas. We feel strongly that this bill which we are cosponsoring can be part of the solution. About one-quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity, but the rest is used to manufacture plastics that go into things such as cars, computers, and medical equipment. Fertilizer and pharmaceutical production is highly dependent on natural gas. In fact, for nitrogen fertilizer, a total of 93 percent of the production cost of that fertilizer is the component of natural gas. The price of natural gas--which, by the way, is one-quarter of the energy of this country--has more than doubled in the past year and it is anticipated that over the next 20 years you will see a 40-percent increase for the usage and need of natural gas in the United States. Another thing about natural gas that makes it very different than oil is natural gas is not easy to ship across oceans. Certainly there is some liquid natural gas technology out there, but a vast majority--all but a tiny fraction of the natural gas we use in this country--comes from United States wells, or comes out of Canada. We have a great reserve of natural gas, not only in the Continental United States, not only in Alaska, but also off our shores. Most notably, the one that most people are aware of is in the Gulf of Mexico. Our legislation will allow the Secretary of the Interior to offer natural gas leases as part of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program. Let me say this: As Senator Warner of Virginia said a few moments ago, we are referring only to natural gas. We have been very careful to make sure this bill does not include petroleum or oil. I hope no one will be confused by an earlier draft because we included some references to oil, but we have very carefully taken all of those out of the bill. I think the bill is very clear on that point now, that this refers only to natural gas supply and exploration.