Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I have a modification which I have sent to the desk.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment to send to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will visit with my colleagues today about a problem this Nation is facing, something very critical to our economy and critical to every section of this great land. It is something I was reminded of time and time again when I was at home in Arkansas during the August recess: It is the high price of gasoline. The price of gas in the last month has risen across the Nation anywhere from 30 to 70 cents per gallon. In Arkansas and throughout the country gas prices are at an unprecedented high. Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina made a bad situation worse. The Gulf of Mexico and the State of Louisiana are absolutely essential in our Nation's production of crude oil and gasoline. Hurricane Katrina has caused major disruptions in the supply of these crucial commodities. This is one reason for the recent spike in the retail price of gasoline, but I am certain it is not the sole cause. As I traveled my home State last month, I heard from countless citizens who believe the oil companies are taking advantage of them. Can you blame them? It is hard for the people in my State, as I am sure it is for the people in other Members' home States, to fill up their gas tanks and pay record high prices at the pump while, at the same time, opening up the business page and seeing the oil companies are making record profits. That does not sit well with people. I believe the consumers have a legitimate concern, a legitimate question about why prices are so high, why they have been trending up in the last year or so. We should have an investigation. If price gouging is occurring, we need to know that. If it is occurring--I am not saying it is--if it is occurring, we need to stop that activity dead in its tracks. This is why I offer this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill that directs the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an immediate investigation into nationwide gasoline prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We must find out--when I say ``find out,'' I do not mean speculate, not accuse, not assume but find out whether gas price gouging is occurring through the supply chain or distribution markets. And if price gouging is occurring, we must punish those who take advantage of this national tragedy. I thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has been a leader on this issue and who has helped shape this amendment and is one of the cosponsors of this amendment. I thank her for her leadership. She has done a great job not just on this legislation but many others as we all know. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen this country come together. It has been very heartwarming. Today I have been on the phone with people all over my State who are operating these camps for people who have been evacuated from the gulf coast area. It is encouraging to see communities, to see people come out of the woodwork to help. It has been very encouraging to see churches in my State go the extra mile for people who need it the most. I am very encouraged by that. We also need to be mindful of what high gas prices do to this Nation's economy. We need to know who the honest brokers are. We need to know when gas stations raise their prices, are they doing it because they need to, because they are being charged, or are they doing it to make a quick buck? Those are legitimate questions. We also need to know what companies sold their gas at a higher price because they needed to and what companies sold their gas at a higher price with greed as their motivation. The people in my State and the people in your State and the people in all of our States have a right to know why gas prices are so high right now. This will cause a great hardship for the economy, for every sector of this country. Everything we buy, everything we pay for, has a fuel component built into it. We understand that. As I wind down, we have had complaints from all over my State. We had one guy write in and say the price jumped 60 cents in 1 day. I know other Members have had complaints. I appreciate consideration of this amendment and appreciate my colleagues looking at it. It is important for this country. It is important for the Senate to take up this issue.

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask the current business be set aside.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on this fourth anniversary of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, we pause to remember the victims and families impacted by the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation. We also honor the bravery and sacrifice of our first responders and the generosity of millions of Americans who united to support one another. The wounds from that dreadful day will never completely heal. Families and friends of those killed in New York City, the Pentagon, and on flight 93 over Pennsylvania still grieve for the senseless loss of their loved ones. We will never forget their sacrifices. This year, as we simultaneously recover from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and honor those that lost their lives on September 11, we must continue to bolster our Nation's readiness for disasters of all sorts. Congress must fulfill its responsibility to the victims of terrorism by supporting the efforts of our military and law enforcement as they continue to pursue those who seek to do our Nation harm. Likewise, Hurricane Katrina has reestablished what September 11 proved 4 years ago, that we still have work to do in preparing our Nation to respond to a large scale disaster. The best way to honor the victims of 9/11 and our most recent disaster is to act to correct the mistakes of the past. We must continue to learn and evolve so that our Government can be as responsive as possible to the security needs of its citizens now, to honor the memory of those we have lost and as a promise to generations to come.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I join my Senate colleagues in voicing my unwavering support to help Gulf Coast residents recover and rebuild their communities in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The $60.5 billion in funding we have passed is a start toward restoring basic infrastructure and the economy, but we have a long way to go. This recovery will require much more of our time, resources and a comprehensive plan; I stand ready to work with my colleagues to do just that. In the last 2 weeks, I have witnessed many good and bad things involving Hurricane Katrina. The generosity and compassion shown by families all over the Nation have redefined the meaning of good neighbor. In Arkansas, I have watched as countless charities, individuals from the private and public sector and the faith-based community joined together to welcome their neighbors with unmatched Southern hospitality. I am very proud of the Arkansas National Guard. Many of these Guard members have spent months in Iraq away from their families this year, but they were eager to join the military operation to help rescue Hurricane victims, secure the streets of New Orleans, and maintain order in many of our shelters. I am also pleased that these Guard members have been mobilized under title 32 so that their time counts for purposes of retirement, health care and other benefits enjoyed by their Active-Duty counterparts. After the initial devastation of Hurricane Katrina, I called my Gulf Coast colleagues to ask how I could help and support their constituents in their time of need. I am working to honor their requests by coordinating logistics for evacuees and helping evacuees in Arkansas resolve problems involving Social Security checks, postal services, and FEMA forms. My office is also working to find housing for evacuees, transport them, reunite families, and assist with translation. As 60,000 or more of their constituents have traveled to Arkansas, I am working to serve their constituents as well as Arkansans. Evacuees should know that as they get their lives back together, they have a home in Arkansas. While the American people were stepping up to the plate, the Government struck out. Our emergency plans failed to meet expectations. I want to focus on helping distressed families now, but in the not too distant future, we need to take a hard look at the failures that occurred in responding to this disaster. Under Senate rules, Senators Collins and Lieberman are tasked with leading Government oversight as the ranking members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As a member of this committee, I can attest to their strong, bipartisan, and tested leadership. The intelligence restructuring bill drafted in this committee, passed by this body, and signed into law by President Bush last year is a fitting example. This same committee ought to pursue its oversight responsibilities on the Government's slow rescue and response efforts. I believe very adamantly that part of any investigation, and subsequent legislation, must begin with fixing the chain-of-command and bureaucratic breakdowns that occurred before and after the hurricane. If the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is not tapped for this undertaking, then I believe the families of the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the Nation, deserve a thorough review of the mistakes that occurred by an independent body in a setting where politics will not play a role. A primary reason for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, following 9/11, was to allow for a smooth and immediate rescue and recovery operation when disaster strikes--whether naturally occurring or manmade. But instead of a smooth operation, States and Federal agencies again ran into redtape and confusion. A terrorist attack and a hurricane are, of course, two completely different disasters, but the response efforts are just as critical and necessary, and they translate into saving lives. We have put enormous resources into a national emergency preparedness and response system nearly 4 years after 9/11, and I am concerned and dismayed that our response to a significant disaster has not been improved exponentially. The Government's failure to respond effectively shows weaknesses in our emergency preparedness not just to Americans but also to terrorists who seek havoc in our country. We must find and fix the discrepancies in the system, look for accountability, and make sure these mistakes are never repeated in the United States again. We owe this to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and, quite frankly, we owe it to the victims of 9/11. I believe the problems that occurred before, during and after the hurricane have unveiled something else about America. They have opened up eyes in Washington, DC, and across the country about the abject poverty some families live in. Those left stranded on their rooftops or in the Superdome painted a very vivid picture about the inequities that exist in our country today, and they speak volumes about the transportation, housing and health care available in this country. If anything at all comes from this tragedy, I hope it will be a new focus on our priorities in this body. Before the hurricane hit, the Senate was expected to return from its August recess to vote on repealing the estate tax for wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, and cutting health care services for our poorest Americans. Hurricane Katrina showed that we, as a Nation, are failing to take care of our poor, our sick, and our elderly. Government must do better, and that leadership must start with the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We can start with a number of proposals that have been put forth by both Republicans and Democrats to help the South recover from Hurricane Katrina. These initiatives range from financial assistance to host States for evacuee care; tax incentives for employers to hire evacuees; and health care, housing, and nutritional assistance for evacuees. I stand ready to help and lead in these efforts. Senator Landrieu delivered an impassioned speech on the floor yesterday, and I end with her words, ``We must learn from this experience. If we do not, we will fail again.''

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the highway bill conference report. This legislation is 2 years overdue, and I am pleased that we are finally completing this very critical piece of legislation. I would like to thank Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, Baucus, and their staffs for their very hard work on this bill and commend them for the bipartisan way in which they have proceeded. I would also like to thank Senator Lott and Senator Inouye, the chairman and co chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, for their work on the safety portions of this bill, as well as Senator Stevens, the chair of the full Commerce Committee. I was proud to have worked on these very important motor carrier and passenger safety provisions. I have addressed this body before with my concerns about the need for a highway bill. In America over one-third of our major roads are both deteriorating and congested. In Arkansas, 47 percent of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition--almost half. Additionally, over one in four bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that close to 42,800 persons died in car crashes in 2004. Over 2,000 Arkansans have died on our highways over the past several years. Too many families die on our highways--plain and simple. The amount of freight expected to travel on our Nation's highways over the next 20 years is expected to double. Not only do we need to improve the existing system, we feed to increase the capacity of the system. This bill would decrease congestion on American roads and enable businesses to transport their materials across the United States safely. It would also spur economic development and create many jobs for hard-working Americans. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion of investment in our highways, we create 47,500 jobs annually. This bill provides a record amount of investment in our Nation's highways and interstates, over $286 billion. But we still have much work to do. We must continue to make investments in infrastructure, and we must work toward finding creative solutions to our transportation problems. After all, good schools, good health care, and good jobs don't mean much if you can't get there. I am pleased this bill provides funding increases that could be used to make substantial progress on important economic development projects in my State and around the country. With passage of this bill, Arkansas would be able to make progress on many critical projects such as the Northeast Arkansas Connector, the Caraway Bridge Overpass, the Interstate 430/630 Interchange Modification, the Perry Road Overpass, and the Hot Springs East-West Arterial, just to name a few. These projects will greatly enhance the capacity and safety of Arkansas roadways. This bill also enables Arkansas to make significant progress on our two large corridors, I-49 and I-69, that, if completed, would help generate economic expansion, add jobs, and provide isolated areas with transportation options. I am pleased this bill provides $75 million for the I-69 Corridor, including the Great River Bridge which serves as a ``Bridge Across the Delta.'' It provides $72 million for the I-69 Connector, which will enable the northern part of the State to access I-69. 1 am also pleased that this bill provides $37 million for the I- 49 Bella Vista Bypass and several other projects that will reduce congestion and allow for further economic development in northwest Arkansas, one of the top 10 fastest growing areas in America. This is a wise investment that will pay for itself by fostering interstate commerce, bolstering tourism, and creating jobs. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It is a long overdue bill. It is a bipartisan bill. My constituents support it, I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a legendary Arkansan. Jackson ``Jack'' Stephens was a businessman, financier, and philanthropist whose work has touched the lives of countless individuals in and outside of Arkansas, and his contributions to the state will live on for generations to come. Described by Scott Ford, CEO of Alltel Corporation, as ``the most brilliant businessperson that the state has ever produced,'' Jack Stephens has many accomplishments and accolades to his credit. Jack grew up on a farm in Grant County, AR. He attended the U.S. Naval Academy, and soon thereafter he joined his brother Witt's investment firm, which became the financial vehicle for his success over the years. Jack's good business instincts and fabled work ethic led Stephens, Inc. to the forefront of Arkansas business. The financial clout that the Stephens brothers were able to amass allowed Jack to play an essential role in the development of some of Arkansas' most successful businesses, including Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, and Alltel Corporation. The Stephens name is virtually inseparable from economic development in Arkansas over the last half century, and rightfully so. Jack Stephens was also a philanthropist who truly believed in the values of charity and community service. His love for the people of Arkansas led him to invest not only in for-profit ventures to contribute to our State's economic well-being but also in many nonprofit causes for the benefit of the people of Arkansas. He helped build the distinguished Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neurosciences Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Jack's support of the arts, health and education also made a notable difference in lives of so many Arkansans. Perhaps one of the best known causes that Jack promoted was related to one of his lifetime passions: golf. In 1991 Jack was chosen to be chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters tournament, where he served until 1997. It is here that Jack developed the idea of extending his favorite pastime to underprivileged youths. Thanks to his generous support, the First Tee program, with locations in Little Rock and Fort Smith, promotes, character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf. Jack Stephens' giving spirit will live on in the many institutions he has supported over the years, and his legacy will continue to influence the State of Arkansas for a long time to come. I join all Arkansans in giving thanks for the life of a pioneer businessman and an eternal friend of his fellowman.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask that amendment No. 1125 be called up.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, my amendment simply encourages the Secretary of Homeland Security to consider an integrated mobile medical system as part of the Department's requirement for mobile medical systems. The DOD is currently evaluating a fully integrated mobile medical system, and it appears that this system holds very promising results to provide quality medical treatment for emergency situations. My amendment encourages the Department of Homeland Security to look at this issue and maybe allocate some resources for it. I thank the majority staff, as well as the minority staff, and the two bill managers for their assistance on this amendment. The amendment has been agreed to. I thank my staff as well for all the hard work and diligence they put into it. The amendment has been cleared on both sides. I thank specifically Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd for their support and assistance. Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 1125.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Collins amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill before this body. I want to thank Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman for the diligent and considerate effort they have made to bring this legislation forward. Also, I would like to thank Jeffrey Highley, a civil engineering fellow in my office, for all of his hard work on this issue. He has been a valuable asset to my office. I know there will always be more that we can do to prepare for and prevent against the threats to our security. Yet the Homeland Security appropriations bill before this body continues to reduce the level of State funding that began as a response to an attack on our Nation. That is why this amendment is so necessary. It restores threat-based funding to the level States received in 2004 and increases the amount in the underlying bill by more than $1 billion. Furthermore, it provides a smart and responsible approach to funding. In order for our State and local emergency response teams to plan a long-term strategy of preparedness, they need to have a level of predictable funding. States are required to submit plans to DHS 3 years in advance. This amendment will establish a fair and stable funding formula that States such as Arkansas can use to plan ahead. Furthermore, this amendment will ensure that critical prevention efforts receive funding. The National Association of Police Organizations agrees, ``[this amendment] ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks--not just response efforts--receive a significant share of the homeland security funds.'' I know there are some in Congress who believe that the funding formula for homeland security grants should solely reflect perceived threat and risk. While I understand these concerns, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues on the merits of their arguments. Conventional wisdom might suggest that another terrorist attack will involve a target-rich environment--a big bustling city with skyscrapers and millions of people. Conventional wisdom suggests that terrorists might strike at a location or at a symbol that personifies America. I say, however, that to only rely on conventional wisdom sets ourselves up for unforeseen but certain tragedy down the road. I ask my colleagues: Four years ago could we have fathomed 19 terrorists hijacking American airliners with box cutters no less? Could we have fathomed these hijackers using those airliners to conduct suicide missions? Could we have fathomed watching as two airplanes struck the World Trade Center and yet another crashing into the Pentagon? And as you ponder those questions, I also ask: Just 1 month after that, as America was pulling itself out of the ashes, still recovering from the horrific acts of September 11, 2001, did anyone foresee an envelope being sent to Senator Tom Daschle's office that would cause the largest biological attack on American soil and effectively shut down the Senate Hart Building for several months? We look back at these events now in hindsight and I think we have learned a lot about our enemy and what it will take for us to both win the war on terror and defend our homeland. But let us remember: we must be prepared for the next terrorist attack, not the last. And that terrorist attack could come in many shapes and sizes. I understand how some might think that big cities on the east and west coasts are those most vulnerable, most at risk for another horrific attempt. But I think it is obtuse to write off a large section of this country because of conventional wisdom. I think it is naive to believe terrorists would never strike at our heartland, that they would not attempt to attack our food supply or our nuclear and chemical plants located in both large and small States. I think it is shortsighted to think that the next attack will be similar to the first and to prepare with such narrow vision. In order for America to be protected from terrorism, we need all parts of the country to be prepared. Local and State entities and first responders across the Nation have worked doggedly to make our Nation safer, and they have. Our civilian authorities must be able to respond to whatever may confront them in the future. But how can they properly respond when they are not given adequate resources? With the amendment offered by Senators Collins and Lieberman, State homeland security will be based on the essential capabilities necessary to prepare for potential terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies--no matter where they might occur. September 11 made us acutely aware that there are vulnerabilities in our homeland but it also made us acutely aware of the need of genuine partnerships that involve all segments of our communities and all levels of government--we all have a role in keeping our community safe. So I submit that part of our job of the Federal Government must be to ensure that local governments are given the resources to protect their citizenry and that we all share the responsibilities for homeland security wisely and fairly. This is why I urge my colleagues from States small and large to support the Collins amendment. It strikes a fair balance between the critical need to provide a baseline of protection and providing risk- based funding.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor the Fayetteville Public Library which was recently named the 2005 ``Library of the Year'' by Thomson Gale and Library Journal. The Library of the Year Award honors the library that is most dedicated to community service through its creativity and leadership. Thompson Gale and Library Journal will present a check for $10,000 to the Fayetteville Public Library later this month during the American Library Association's annual conference in Chicago, IL. I would like to recognize Louise Schapter, executive director of the Fayetteville Public Library, and her outstanding staff, for their commitment to providing such a quality community resource to the citizens of Northwest Arkansas. During Ms. Schapter's tenure, library usage has soared. Visits have increased from 192,179 to 576,773, checkouts have risen from 271,187 to 718,159, program attendance has grown from 14,448 to 41,658, and cardholders have leaped from 15,662 to 48,419. What a remarkable accomplishment. I would also like to mention that the library has more than 160 regular volunteers, who deliver books to the homebound, shelve and cover books, staff the computer lab and conduct various programs. This involvement by the community is truly commendable and makes all of us in Arkansas proud. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fayetteville Public Library on receiving this well-deserved honor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman, Senator Conrad Burns, and the ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior for their support of a project that is most important to me: the National Park Service's Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitors Center. Due to Senator Burns' and Senator Dorgan's ongoing efforts, the new Little Rock Central High Museum and Visitors Center is back on track to be built for the 50th anniversary of the 1957-1958 Little Rock desegregation crisis. I thank the subcommittee staff, Bruce Evans and Peter Kiefhaber, for their help as well in making this project a reality. This is important because in September of 2007, it is anticipated that we will have a very large 50th anniversary commemoration and celebration of the Little Rock Central High School desegregation crisis. Hopefully, one of the things that we will have there to showcase is a brand new visitors center that will allow people to learn about not only Little Rock Central High and the role it played in integration, but also learn about the civil rights movement in general. I remind my colleagues and others listening about the events that took place at Little Rock Central High almost 50 years ago. Little Rock Central High School was a place in 1957 where nine Black teenagers integrated the all-White Central High in Little Rock, testing the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ultimately ended legal segregation in our schools in this Nation. To its credit, the Little Rock School Board took Brown v. Board of Education seriously. When the Supreme Court said ``all deliberate speed,'' they took that literally. They looked at their calendars and thought: That decision came out in 1954. They probably thought they could not get it done in 1955, probably not in 1956, but in the fall of 1957, they made the determination that they could have the high school in Little Rock ready to integrate. As these nine teenagers attempted to enter the doors of Central High School, they were confronted with an angry, rampaging mob. President Eisenhower was forced to order Federal troops to Little Rock to end the brutal intimidation campaign mounted against the Black children and to uphold the Brown decision. The Little Rock Nine--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair, and Melba Pattillo Beals--changed the course of American history by claiming the right to receive an equal education. I must not let the moment pass without mentioning the amazing courage exhibited by Daisy Bates of Little Rock who was a civil rights leader and, by all accounts, was a key person in making equal education a reality in Arkansas and also in the Nation. Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitors Center will provide America with an understanding of the events of 1957 and 1958, the broader civil rights movement, and how the bravery of the Little Rock Nine still influences life in the 21st century. It will teach our youth that nine young high school students proved that all men are created equal and that the rule of law is paramount in the democracy of the United States. It will remind the world that children all over America have the right to learn because of the courage and the sacrifice of the Little Rock Nine. We have been racing against time to secure the funds to build the center in time for the 50th anniversary of the crisis. On June 9 of this year, I had the privilege of having a conference call with eight of the nine. By the way, all nine are still living. I had the privilege of having a conference call with eight of the nine and reporting news that Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan had provided the crucial $5.1 million for the Central High center in this year's bill. The joy expressed by the Little Rock Nine made me once again reflect on their acts of courage and heroism. Their gratitude made me reflect on their continuing self-sacrifice and the importance of our--the Senate's--support to share their story with our current generation and generations to follow. In the words of Minnijean Brown Trickey, the funds in this bill are ``an affirmation of a very beautiful and tragic story.'' Carlotta Walls LaNier said: With this museum, visitors will remember the events of 1957, but more importantly understand the difference individuals can make in promoting equal rights and tolerance. On behalf of Little Rock Nine, the Arkansas delegation, and the Nation, I express my deepest gratitude for the support of Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitors Center. I thank my colleagues for ensuring that these extraordinary achievements are recorded and shared for a better America.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to change gears for a few moments and talk about something that is also important to this body, and that is the judicial compromise that 14 Senators, including myself, reached on May 23. This agreement, or memorandum of understanding, was signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans. I hope it has helped bring this august body back from the brink of what we have called nuclear catastrophe. The agreement or compromise on judicial nominees helped prevent the so-called nuclear option from occurring. This agreement allowed an up- or-down vote on several of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominations while protecting minority rights in the Senate, as well as the checks and balances on which our Government was founded. It has been about a month since the agreement was entered into. I have had a little bit of time to reflect on some of the things that happened leading up to and during that time and since that time. So if I may, I would like to take just a few moments to share some thoughts. The first thought I wish to share is that I felt it very important to avoid the nuclear option. The reason I say that is because one of the great things about this body throughout its history is this body's emphasis on protecting the rights of the minority, the rights of those who maybe in other places might not have a chance to be heard. But in the Senate, given our sense of checks and balances and given our history and the way the Founding Fathers established the Senate, the voice of the minority can be heard. I also think in order to avoid the nuclear winter, if you want to continue with the analogy of the nuclear option, after the nuclear trigger had been pulled would have been devastating for this body. It would have set a terrible precedent and probably what would have happened--I could be wrong about this; maybe we will never know-- probably what would have happened is that we would not have gotten anything passed in the Senate, with the exception of our appropriations bills and a few pieces of emergency legislation. It would have just been awful. Quite frankly, I know when the people in Arkansas elected me to the Senate, they did not elect me to come up here to twiddle my thumbs and get into partisan brouhahas. They elected me to get things done for the State, the Nation, and the world. In fact, in the last few weeks we have been able to work through many issues on the Energy bill--we anticipate it will pass next week--and the Transportation bill. There are a lot of issues involved. Both those bills still have to go to conference and have final passage. Regardless, I wonder if those would have been possible had the nuclear option trigger been pulled. I also must say that I have been a little disappointed with some of the rabid rhetoric by special interests around the country and by commentators, maybe statements I have heard on various radio and television talk shows. Quite frankly, I think the rhetoric is not helpful. I think it is unfair, it is untrue, and I think a lot of it is just plain wrong. I have heard some people say that the Senators who entered into this agreement are sellouts or traitors or they call for retribution. If I may say about my 13 colleagues, it took great courage for them to enter into this agreement because they knew the political risk they were taking, but they also knew they were standing up to try to do the right thing. One observation I have made about a lot of the people who are critical about this agreement is that they do not necessarily want to see the Senate get things done, that their agenda is not for productivity. Their agenda may be limited to a few narrow issues, and they just want those issues emphasized, talked about, with a sort of ``win at all costs'' mentality. One of the great things about the Senate is that it is a place where people can come together and find common ground. That has been the history of the Senate. We learned from this compromise that good things happen when Senators talk to each other. One of the lessons I have learned in Washington--I have been here about 2\1/2\ years now--is, quite frankly, we spend a lot more time talking about each other than we do talking to each other. Hopefully, this compromise is an example of when we talk with each other, good things can happen and positive things can flow from that. In fact, I know a lot of people around the country--I have a few in my State of Arkansas--who think that compromise is a dirty word. I just cannot disagree more strongly. If we look at the Constitution, the fact that we have a bicameral legislature, the fact that we have a Senate and a House of Representatives, and the different structure of those two, that has always been called the Great Compromise in the Constitutional Convention. The fact the Senate even exists today is a result of a compromise. The fact that our Government is located in Washington, DC, we all know now from history, is the result of a compromise. In fact, you can go throughout American history and see compromise after compromise where people find common ground and put the common good above their private interests or their narrow set of interests. We have seen that just as recently as this week on the Energy bill. I think if you ask all 100 people, they would say this bill is not perfect, but it is a compromise, trying to find common ground, trying to set national energy policy for the Nation. Compromise can be very good. I think in this particular compromise, both parties won. It was good for the Democrats, and it was good for the Republicans. Both sides had to give up something in order to get there. The Senate won, but most important of all the American people won because the fact the Senate is back in business and we have moved through a number of nominations and we already moved through major pieces of legislation and we are starting another piece of legislation today is a win-win for the American people. I have no doubt at all--and this is another observation--that this agreement will be tested. I have no doubt people will shake it to see how strong it is. It will be scrutinized, and it has been scrutinized. There has been a lot of ink spilled over this agreement as to what certain phrases mean or how it will be applied, how it will be interpreted. One thing I found a little humorous, if I may say, during the course of the last 30 days, is I have heard a lot of so-called experts talk or write, and they try to apply their own definitions to this agreement. It seems particularly true for those who disagree with the agreement most. They try to define it and refine it and shape it in a way that meets with their approval. I will run through a couple of items in the agreement. I will try to do this very quickly because I know there are other colleagues who are very patiently waiting to speak. Sections A and B in the agreement, part A states: Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. Part B states: Rule Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII. I will run through a few issues in those phrases, if I may. There are two basic questions I get continuously. In fact, I was talking to some of the Capitol Hill interns yesterday and the first question out of the box, they asked: What are extraordinary circumstances? That is a fair question. I get that everywhere I go now. The other question I get is: Is the nuclear option off the table for the 109th Congress? As to the question about extraordinary circumstances, I would say this: The 14 Senators sat down in many of our offices for days on end, hours and hours of meetings and discussions and one might say negotiations. We would look each other in the eye. We understand how important this is and we have a strong sense of where our other 13 colleagues are coming from. Extraordinary circumstances will not be defined by outside groups. With all due respect to the leaders and even the other Senators who are not part of this, it will not be defined by our leaders or by our colleagues. Extraordinary circumstances means exactly what it says in the agreement. We will use our discretion and our judgment in making that determination. In fact, I would say all 100 Senators, when they were sent to Congress by their 50 States, the voters in those States expect their Senators to use their discretion and judgment in everything we do. This is no different. All 14 of us are very committed to doing that and using our discretion and judgment. I think I can speak for the group that we all hope we do not have to deal with extraordinary circumstances, but in the event we do, we trust each other. I think that is the bottom line on this agreement. This agreement is one that is based on trust. So when we are asked about extraordinary circumstances or when we are asked about is the nuclear option off the table, the bottom line we will keep coming back to is trust. We trust each other. The 14 of us have built that level of trust through this process and we are committed to doing our dead level best to try and make this agreement work. The answer to the second question, is the nuclear option off the table for the 109th Congress, I would say, yes, it is because it is based on trust. During the negotiations and ever since the negotiations have concluded and to this very point today, we have proceeded in good faith. The Democrats have had to make some hard votes on some of these judges who had not received up-or-down votes before and we have done that. I think some of the Republican signatories will acknowledge that it was very hard for some of the Democrats to do what we have done on some of these judicial nominations. At the same time, we trust our Republican colleagues, our Republican signatories to this agreement, to act in good faith in the future. This is based on trust. I am proud of my colleagues. I am proud I was able to be part of this agreement. Let me talk about one more section. I know I have colleagues waiting to speak so I will try to be very brief. But after part II, sections A and B, there is another section that deals with advice and consent. As everyone now knows, this language was agreed to, but it was really hammered out by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator John Warner, two great statesmen we have in the Senate. The language states: We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. Again, Senator Byrd and Senator Warner deserve a lot of credit for the phrasing of this language. I think this language is exactly right. I think when the Constitution says advice and consent, the Founding Fathers meant what they said, advice and consent. Oftentimes we talk about consent, but the word ``advice'' gets overlooked. I would hope that every President would seek the Senate's advice on nominations. I think not only is it required in the Constitution, but it is smart and it shows good judgment by the President. I also think if Presidents would do this, a lot of this rancor would go away and a lot of the nomination process for these folks would get much smoother. I have not been around the Senate very long, about 2\1/ 2\ years, but I did in some ways grow up around the Senate. One of the things I have seen over the years that has changed is there used to be much more bipartisan cooperation. In fact, I think the people in my State--I cannot speak for people all over the country, but I have a clear sense from people in my State that they are sick and tired of the partisan bickering in Washington. They want us to work together. They elect us to work together. They expect us to do that. That is their hope, because we all know, they all know, that for us to get things done in Washington we have to work together. I am hoping this agreement is an important step in doing that. That is not just true within this body--and, by the way, if I can editorialize for one moment, I would say we need to be very clear. Both parties are to blame for the partisan rancor. It is not limited to one side or the other. When it comes to judicial nominations, the Senate shares some responsibility and the President shares responsibility, not just this President but previous Presidents and previous administrations, Democrats and Republicans. We all share some of the blame, we should all own up to that responsibility, and we should all do our best to make it better. Maybe back in the old days the President might call a few Senators over to the White House and say, hey, let's have a drink and let's talk about this. I am not going to make a recommendation on the having a drink part, but I do want to strongly encourage the President to invite Members of the Senate over to talk about upcoming judicial nominations. I hope he will not just talk to one or two. I hope he does not just talk to members of his party. I hope he will talk to a number of Senators about nominations. I think it is very important. The last thing I wanted to say is I cannot speak for my 13 colleagues, but I think if one asks all 14 of us, we would want to be very clear on one point, and that is when we entered into the agreement, we in no way, shape, or form wanted to become a rump Judiciary Committee. We do not want to do that. We do not want that role. I am speaking for myself here, but I think one could ask my 13 colleagues. We do not see ourselves as having any veto power or any unique role now in judicial nominations. I would hope very strongly that the Senate Judiciary Committee would continue to be the place in the normal process these nominations go through. I have a ton of respect for Senators Arlen Specter and Senator Patrick Leahy. They are great leaders. They are great Americans. They do yeoman's work in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I would hope those two would be the first two the President would consult. Quite frankly, I wish they would consult with John Warner and Robert Byrd because I think those two add a lot. Certainly I would hope the White House would talk to all members of the Judiciary Committee and the home State Senators before these nominations are made. I think that, again, is a way for us to tone down the rhetoric and to provide a smoother course for these nominations to get through. I cannot predict the future, but I do know what it has been like around here in the past. I think things have gotten a little bit better in the last 30 days since we entered into this agreement. I am so proud of my colleagues that sensible voices have come to the floor. We have found common ground on judicial nominations. I am not sure there has been a more contentious issue since I have been in the Senate. If we can work that out, we hope that is a good sign for the American people that we can work out a lot of things. Our compromise shows there is still a spirit of trust and bipartisanship in this body, and I hope we can foster that and move it forward. I thank my 13 colleagues who entered into this agreement. I know many of them showed great courage when they did it. Many of them have been heavily criticized for doing it, but I am convinced it is the right thing to do. I am proud we did it and I hope it provides us a model for how we can move forward and try to find common ground in the future on a whole variety of issues. I am not saying the 14 should get back together on every single issue, but I hope it shows that Members of the Senate will continue to reach across the aisle, find that common ground. Just as we heard a few moments ago with the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from North Dakota, they may come out in the process at different places, but it is great to hear that dialogue where they can hash out ideas and try to get things done and try to do the right thing for this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, families in Arkansas want and deserve a national energy policy that truly moves us towards energy independence. We must look beyond oil, gas, and coal and develop cleaner alternatives and new sources of energy, especially renewable fuels. This bill offers a good starting point in achieving this goal, and I am pleased the Senate has agreed to adopt my amendment that embraces the potential of biodiesel and hythane as part of this effort. My amendment requires that the Department of Energy, in conjunction with universities throughout the country, prepare two reports. These reports would evaluate the potential markets, infrastructure development needs and possible impediments to commercialization for two alternative fuels: biodiesel and hythane. Biodiesel can substitute directly for petroleum-based diesel fuel, usually with no engine modifications, and offers a number of health and environmental benefits. It produces less carbon monoxide, less sulfur oxides emissions, and less particulate or soot emissions from some engines. It allows for safer handling. It is an agricultural-based feedstock may be produced anew every year, unlike fossil fuels which have declining reserves. And in Arkansas and other agricultural states, the robust commercializing of biodiesel would mean an economic boon to our farmers. The promise of biodiesel as a fuel source is just beginning to show. Biodiesel only currently accounts for less than 0.1 percent of diesel fuel consumption in the U.S. But total U.S. diesel fuel use was estimated at 39.5 billion gallons in 2001, including 33.2 billion of on-road highway use. The enhanced commercialization of biodiesel can help reverse this trend, but only if we enable this industry to get off the ground on a solid footing. We have seen an enormous amount of federal assistance help support and catapult the ethanol industry. Our soybean farmers and our Nation could benefit from similar treatment. My amendment also requires a study on the feasibility of hythane deployment, which is a blend of hydrogen and methane. Hythane is considered a stepping stone or bridge to the hydrogen economy because it represents an initial commercial application of hydrogen as a legitimate fuel option. It reduces nitrogen oxide, NOx, emissions by 95 percent relative to diesel, and makes significant reductions in carbon dioxide. China is now leading the way in developing hythane-powered vehicles. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, Beijing, is in the process of replacing 10,000 diesel buses with hythane buses. Additionally, hythane offers a solution to improve waste management in our communities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, municipal solid waste landfills are the largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for about 34 percent of these emissions. Landfill gas is created as solid waste decomposes in a landfill and consists of about 50 percent methane. Instead of allowing this gas to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used to make hythane. As of December 2004, there are approximately 380 operational Landfill Gas energy projects in the United States and more than 600 landfills that are good candidates for projects. Companies ranging from Ford to Honeywell to Nestle are converting landfill gas into energy. There is similar potential for chemical plants who also release methane into the atmosphere, contributing to local smog and global climate change. If they sequestered methane to sell to a hythane manufacturer, I believe they would take advantage of the profits it would yield. My State of Arkansas, for example, has significant methane seams, including the Fayetteville shale bed methane seam, which Southwest Energy and CDX Gas are already using to their advantage. These resources could contribute to hythane fuel production as well. Our Nation's energy problems cannot be solved overnight; however, we would be remiss if we did not at least further explore innovative and practical solutions, such as biodiesel and hythane. This amendment is a win-win situation for our energy dependence, health, economy and environment. I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on Saturday, June 18, 2005, Americans honored the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth, the oldest known celebration commemorating the abolition of slavery in the United States. This day celebrates African American freedom and gives us a chance to reflect upon our Nation's history, our present, and our hope for the future. On June 19, 1865, MG Gordon Granger arrived in Texas to proclaim emancipation to Texas slaves. Though President Lincoln had delivered his Emancipation Proclamation more than 2 years earlier, this date marks the first time slaves in Texas and other surrounding States learned of their liberation. General Granger stated, ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer.'' The term ``Juneteenth'' is derived from a combination of the words ``June'' and ``nineteenth'', referring to the official date of the Texas announcement, although the holiday is now celebrated on the third Saturday of June. Following their emancipation, African Americans continued to confront immense hardships in the face of economic, social, and political disfranchisement imposed by a brutally repressive social system. In States such as Arkansas, the Jim Crow order relied on institutionalized racism to maintain the social dominance of Whites and stifle the opportunity that Blacks desired and deserved. We recently revisited the horrors of mob violence, another tool in the repression of Blacks, as the Senate officially apologized for never taking Federal action against lynching over the decades of its practice. Due to the prolonged struggle for freedom and equality for Black Americans, we recognize Juneteenth as both a victory over slavery and as a starting point in the ongoing fight for justice in America. Thanks to the courage and dedication of the participants in the civil rights movement, our Nation has progressed by leaps and bounds from the days of sharecropping, segregated classrooms, Ku Klux Klan violence, and lynchings. However, we must remain vigilant as we strive to ensure that every American is provided an equal opportunity to succeed now and in the future. These were the ideas that people in Arkansas and all across our country reflected upon as they celebrated Juneteenth on Saturday. I am humbled as I reflect upon Juneteenth and pay tribute to the countless contributions and advancements African Americans have made in our country throughout history. Furthermore, I encourage all Americans to join me in remembering the struggles for dignity and racial equality in America and to recommit to fighting for equality in our schools, workplaces and in our communities. And in doing so, let us strive for the strength of will and courage that were exemplified by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as he shared this simple truth with the world: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today with some sadness, but also with great pride, to announce that two of my most trusted Senate aides will be leaving my staff. Both have been faithful and selfless in their service to the State of Arkansas, and their contributions will be sorely missed by me, my staff, and the many Arkansans who have had the great fortune of working with these two wonderful public servants. Patrice Bolling first came to my office before I had even been officially sworn in as Senator. However, she has known the importance of public service much longer. While still in college, Patrice came to Washington for a summer internship in the White House Scheduling Office during the Clinton Administration. She also had the opportunity to work on the staff of my good friend, Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas. Not long after receiving her diploma from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, she worked for the Democratic Party of Arkansas and soon found herself serving as executive director of the State party. Patrice then returned to Washington to serve as the scheduler, executive assistant and legislative assistant on the staff of Congressman Marion Berry of Arkansas. I personally came to know Patrice's hard work and dedication when she took time from her duties on Congressman Berry's staff to work on my campaign for Senate in 2002. Soon after my election, Patrice came to my staff as the scheduler--and I am not sure that my good friend, Congressman Berry, has ever forgiven me. Since that time, I have found Patrice to be an invaluable asset to my staff; so much so that earlier this year she became our office's operations director. Patrice's leadership in helping establish my Washington, DC office was instrumental. While I am sad to see Patrice leave my staff, I am proud of what she has helped our office accomplish in the past 2\1/2\ years. I am confident she will prove as valuable in her new position with a top advertising firm in Austin, TX, and I wish her nothing but the best of luck. Melissa Moody has been involved in public service to the State of Arkansas since her graduation from the University of Arkansas. She too worked for Senator Bumpers as an intern and as a staff member before returning to Arkansas to pursue a law degree. Although she had not yet finished her studies at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School, Melissa accepted my invitation to join my staff in the Arkansas attorney general's office during my term there. It was there that I saw what an outstanding attitude and work ethic she possesses. She later became my scheduler during my Senate campaign and later returned to Washington as my executive assistant. From the time I met Melissa 6 years ago, she has proven herself to be a dedicated, organized, hardworking, and caring employee. While the demands of her responsibilities would be overwhelming to some, she has always remained levelheaded. Her concern for others, her sense of humor, and her consistent optimism have made her a favorite of her coworkers and a good friend to me. She has been an integral part of our office's success. Melissa is moving home to Arkansas to practice law, where I am certain that the traits that allowed her to become one of my most indispensable staffers will allow her to be a successful and compassionate advocate for her clients. I wish her every success. Both Patrice and Melissa will be missed by my staff and me. We all wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors and look forward to the day our paths will cross again.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor the Fayetteville Public Library which was recently named the 2005 ``Library of the Year'' by Thompson Gale and Library Journal. The Library of the Year Award honors the library that is most dedicated to community service through its creativity and leadership. Thompson Gale and Library Journal will present a check for $10,000 to the Fayetteville Public Library later this month during the American Library Association's annual conference in Chicago, IL. I would like to recognize Louise Schapter, Executive Director of the Fayetteville Public Library, and her outstanding staff for their commitment to providing such a quality community resource to the citizens of Northwest Arkansas. During Ms. Schapter's tenure, library usage has soared. Visits have increased from 192,179 to 576,773, checkouts have risen from 271,187 to 718,159, program attendance has grown from 14,448 to 41,658, and cardholders have leaped from 15,662 to 48,419. What a remarkable accomplishment! I would also like to mention that the library has more than 160 regular volunteers who deliver books to the homebound, shelve and cover books, staff the computer lab and conduct various programs. This involvement by the community is truly commendable and makes all of us in Arkansas proud. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fayetteville Public Library on receiving this well-deserved honor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hagel-Pryor climate change amendment and to discuss the reality of global warming. I also thank my colleagues for some of the kind comments on the Senate floor and the kind comments I have heard in the last few days just in the hallways around the Senate. They have been encouraging. Climate change is not a new issue to this body, to the scientific community, or to the public at large. This issue has been discussed, dissected, and debated for years--with little or no action. I believe this is because the complexities and uncertainties about the magnitude, the timing, and the rate of climate change have led to a stalemate on policy recommendations. Mr. President, Senator Hagel and I, as well as the other cosponsors, are trying to move past this stalemate. We bring to the table a market- driven, technology-based approach that will begin to address this controversial yet pressing matter. Our amendment--also cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Craig, Dole, Murkowski, Voinovich, and Stevens--does not dump all of the responsibility on industry, nor does it force a one-size-fits-all mandate. Over and over again, we have watched such approaches result in failure on the Senate floor. We can no longer afford to do nothing. The business and the environmental sectors do not have to be mutually exclusive. With this amendment, we treat them as partners brought together through innovation for the common and necessary good. A third partner in this relationship is the Government, with institutional leverage and funding mechanisms that will help spur industry to create new technologies targeted at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In a nutshell, we are encouraging American ingenuity, partnerships and, above all, progress. This comprehensive climate change amendment has two main components. It identifies what must be accomplished domestically and internationally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The domestic component of our amendment would authorize the Federal Government to make financial commitments for research and development and technology. The Hagel-Pryor amendment authorizes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby default and interest coverage for projects which deploy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, we are asking for an authorization of $2 billion over 5 years in tax credits to support these technologies and to create a new investment and construction tax credit for nuclear power facilities. In Little Rock, we have a small company called ThermoEnergy, which is developing technology that eliminates most air emission from new fossil fuel powerplants. They use a process that increases plant efficiency but also eliminates adverse environmental and health effects associated with the use of fossil fuels, especially coal. I know there are many other companies all over this country that have great potential to achieve a broad range of energy security and environmental goals. They simply need the resources to expand their capabilities into the marketplace. Under this amendment, a wide variety of greenhouse gas-reducing technologies would be eligible for tax credits or loans, ranging from renewable energy products, lower emission transportation, carbon sequestration, coal gasification and liquefaction, and other energy efficiency enhancements. This amendment also establishes a climate coordinating committee and climate credit board to assess, approve, and fund projects; and it directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an interagency process to implement a national climate change strategy. While we deal with climate change here in the United States, let us not forget that people in other parts of the world are already experiencing the effects of global warming. I have heard quite a bit about the 11,000 residents of Tuvalu, who live on a 10-mile square scattered over the Pacific Ocean near Fiji. Tuvalu has no industry, burns little petroleum, and creates less carbon pollution than a small town in America. This tiny place, nevertheless, is on the front line of climate change. The increasing intensity of weather and rising sea level could soon wash away this tiny island. Other low-lying countries, such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, are experiencing similar phenomena. The United States is a contributor to climate change, and we must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we cannot prevent global warming on our own. That is why we have included an international component to this amendment to encourage developing countries to adopt U.S. technologies. In doing so, we have asked the Secretary of State and the U.S. Trade Representative to assume additional roles. First, we provide the Secretary of State with new authority to work with developing countries on deployment and demonstration projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the U.S. Trade Representative is directed to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas- reducing technologies. Furthermore, this amendment would establish an interagency working group to promote the exports of certain technologies and practices. It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help other countries by sharing cleaner technology. Mr. President, this amendment is not the solution for all of our climate change problems. It is meant to serve as a catalyst in bringing the necessary technology to the marketplace. I am hopeful that with the resources provided through this amendment, private industry will swiftly create or adopt cleaner technologies as they become available and move us in the right direction. I yield the floor.