Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Climate Change Act of 2008 wisely recognizes that chemicals such as hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, are valuable commercial products that are used in refrigeration equipment, home and automobile air conditioners, aerosols, insulating foams, and other products and should be treated differently than other greenhouse gases. These important gases are essential to the energy efficient operation of many of the appliances and refrigeration equipment American consumers and businesses rely upon. Having a separate market for HFCs is designed to reduce emissions of these gases over time, while safeguarding the business model of the producers and users of these gases in energy efficient equipment and products.

The Montreal Protocol treaty has been widely praised as a model of international cooperation to phase out the production of many ozone depleting substances including Freon and other CFC-based gases. Accordingly, the industry substituted HFCs for these substances, but now these gases are thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phaseout of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs.

The regulation of hydrofluorcarbon refrigerants represents a major component of the Climate Security Act of 2008, and will have a significant impact on jobs, taxpayers, businesses that manufacture and import these chemicals, and the millions of users of these chemicals in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment as well as other applications. The businesses in this industry sector have a commendable track record of protecting the environment, and are successfully making the transition from ozone-depleting refrigerants to HFCs. Now, as there is a call to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs to address global warming, we must recognize the need for a regulatory regime that reflects the industry's complex marketplace dynamics, cost to the economy, and ensures fair and equitable treatment for producers, importers, and end users.

It takes about 10 years for industry to develop a new class of refrigeration gases with the required thermodynamic properties, low flammability and toxicity, and reduced global warming potential than what is currently in use. At this time, there is no known commercially available replacement for HFCs. The gas providers and equipment manufacturers will have to invest a significant amount of time and money to develop these new, safe refrigeration gases and the compatible equipment that can use them.

I believe that we can come to a reasonable and balanced approach on this issue. The fact is that we need a realistic baseline. The baseline for 2012 should be set at an amount necessary to avoid a supply shortage, the cost of which will be borne by small businesses and consumers. One study suggests that 365 million metric tons is an appropriate baseline. Such a baseline will provide for a smoother transition in subsequent years, which also will result in less cost to small businesses and taxpayers without any adverse effect on the environment.

I encourage Congress, the EPA, the gas producers, and the end-use equipment manufacturers to work closely together to establish a more reasonable emission cap and timeline for the transition from HFCs to a cost-effective, low greenhouse gas potential, alternative substitute. Through cooperation, I am sure we can establish a program that will guarantee the future development of economically sound and environmentally friendly alternatives for these important chemicals.

Mr. President, today I honor the life of a great Arkansan, William E. ``Bill'' Clark, who passed on May 15, 2007. Bill was respected as a great philanthropist, sportsman, business leader and citizen of Arkansas. He was seen as an unparalleled advocate for the needs and welfare of his State and its citizens. He dedicated his life to serving his community and supporting individual lives in the public and private sector.

Bill graduated from Little Rock Central High School in 1961 and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. Thereafter, he joined his brothers at C&C Electric Construction Company in Little Rock, working there until 1981 when he acquired Bragg's Electric Construction Company. In 1987, Bill partnered with Dillard's Incorporated and founded CDI Contractors, which grew to be one of the largest construction firms in the South. High-profile projects completed by CDI under Bill's leadership include the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, the headquarters for Heifer International in Little Rock and Immanuel Baptist Church in West Little Rock, of which Bill was a devout attendee for over 27 years. Bill's impact on the business community of Arkansas is evident by the numerous business and professional awards he received, including Arkansas Business Executive of the Year, Rotary Club of Little Rock's Business and Professional Leader of the Year Award, Paul Harris Fellow as given by Fifty for the Future, election to the Arkansas Construction Hall of Fame, and admission to the University of Arkansas Engineering Hall of Fame and the Arkansas Academy of Electrical Engineering.

Respected and admired throughout Arkansas for over three decades, Bill took on countless worthwhile projects with optimism and enthusiasm; he was an inspiration to many. The positions he held relating to public service are evidence of his commitment to his community. His awards reflect his professional successes as well as his avid public service. These awards included the Arkansas Arts Center's Winthrop Rockefeller Memorial Award, the Boys and Girls Club of America National Service to the Youth Award, the Edwin N. Hanlon Memorial Award for Contribution to the Arts, and the Arkansas Children's Award from the Arkansas Sheriff's Youth Ranches.

Bill was a past president of the board for the University of Arkansas board of trustees, the Arkansas Arts Center, the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Country Club of Little Rock. Bill served as a board member of the Little Rock Boys and Girls Club, the Arkansas Arts Center Foundation, Baptist Health, the UAMS Foundation, Ouachita Baptist University Business Advisory Council, and the Episcopal Collegiate School Foundation.

During his lifetime, Bill was an enthusiastic outdoorsman. He loved hunting, fishing, and golf, while remaining committed to conservation endeavors. A final gesture honoring Bill and benefiting his community is the establishment of the William E. ``Bill'' Clark Presidential Park Wetlands, a 13-acre tract located on the banks of the Arkansas River running adjacent to the Clinton Presidential Library. This natural wetland area provides an educational exhibit that can be enjoyed by State, national, and international visitors for generations to come. As contractor for the Clinton Presidential Library, Bill believed in the library's mission to strive for educational advances within Arkansas, including the history of the United States, the institutional roles of the Presidency and the American political system as applied to President William J. Clinton.

It is hard for people to experience Arkansas without noticing the remarkable accomplishments of Bill Clark. It is not hard to imagine just what makes Bill Clark so special to his family, his friends, and to Arkansas. He was a person of great faith, a loving husband and father, a doting grandfather, and a humorous, compassionate friend to all he met. Bill never approached a situation with a negative attitude; rather, he saw everything as an opportunity to benefit his community. Bill will be well remembered for his generosity and commitment to improving his community.

Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of SSG Chad Caldwell who left this world fighting for democracy and peace for the Iraqi people. By all accounts, he loved his family and country and served three combat tours to safeguard their future.

After graduating from Cheney High School in 2001, Staff Sergeant Caldwell joined the Army. The decorated soldier served one tour in Iraq, followed by a second combat tour in Afghanistan. In February 2007, he signed up for a third tour in Iraq. During this time, he earned two Army Commendation Medals, including one for saving the life of a pregnant woman after the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was bombed in 2003. The second medal was awarded to Staff Sergeant Caldwell for saving the life of his lieutenant colonel that was caught in gunfire.

I join Arkansans and Washingtonians in lifting his wife Raechel and two young sons, Trevor and Coen, in my prayers. We will never forget the sacrifice made by the Caldwell family.

Mr. President, today, I wish to acknowledge the love and support LTC John Lucas's family has shown him during his 24 years of service in the U.S. Air Force. LTC John Lucas, an Arkansas native, will retire from the Air Force on August 1, 2008. Lieutenant Colonel Lucas attended the University of Arkansas, making me particularly proud because that is my alma mater, and his oldest son, John Lucas, is carrying on the tradition as a freshman at the university as well.

Lieutenant Colonel Lucas's wife, Coleen, wrote to me on the occasion of his retirement and asked that I write a note of thanks to their family and her husband in an effort to recognize their sacrifice and support over the last 24 year. She writes:

While John served his country, his family and mine were

both loving and supportive through times of crisis, war and

peace. We had times of struggle but both of our families

helped me and our children so that my husband could serve our

country. Over the past 24 years, we have moved eight times,

lived in 11 homes, uprooted the children from schools, moved

them away from friends, and endured deployments. Through it

all the one constant was family.

Our men and women in uniform have a tremendous responsibility to protect our Nation's freedoms and it is family support that helps them accomplish their mission. Sacrifice, selflessness and perseverance define the special role of a military family such as the Lucas family.

Today, I thank John C. Lucas and his family for their service to our Nation. Our country is blessed to have you John, Coleen, Kevin, Bryan and Andrea Lucas.

Mr. President, I rise in honor of today's Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day when, over the past 15 years, individuals, families and workplaces have joined in expanding opportunities and transforming the lives of millions of girls and boys both nationally and internationally. I want to take this opportunity to discuss the importance of family in creating an active and resourceful citizenship and workforce for the future. As our Nation continues in its historical role as a melting pot, the importance of international adoption in the fabric of American families continues to grow. Mr. Paul Hanly Furfey stated that ``The first, the most fundamental right of childhood is the right to be loved. The child comes into the world alone, defenseless, without resource. Only love can stand between his helplessness and the savagery of a harsh world.'' Families created or expanded by international adoption are unique and special, open to cultural differences and

sharing in the common elements of mankind, compassion and love.

The United Nations Population Division gathered data from more than 100 countries and found that in a world of 2.2 billion children under the age of 18, fewer than 12 per 100,000 are being adopted. In other words, in a total global population of 6.5 billion, there are only about 260,000 adoptions of all kinds annually including those within countries, across borders and of step children. In the United States we have seen an upward trend in international adoptions from 7,083 in 1990 to 17,718 in 2000 and over 20,000 international adoptions in 2007.

I have received several letters of concern from many Arkansans inquiring as to what the U.S. Government is doing to help these children find their way to loving homes in Arkansas. In fact, the United States has taken several important steps to protect the rights of the child and to assist families in the international adoption process. From a global level, the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption--Hague Adoption Convention--a broad multilateral treaty, was signed by the United States in March of 1994. In 2000, the Senate and the House passed the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 to implement the Convention. In 2006, the Department of State issued the final rule on the Accreditation and Approval of Agencies and Persons to implement the Convention and the Intercountry Adoption Act.

Legislation to help adoptive families pay for expenses associated with adoption procedures was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to make improvements to the Internal Revenue Code to add a two-part adoption assistance tax relief program. The tax relief for adoption expenses has helped many families to be able to afford the financial costs of the actual adoption process. The Department of Homeland Security now issues immigrant visas to children entering the United States with adoptive parents who are U.S. citizens under the I-800 Visa Program, making them U.S. citizens when they reach U.S. soil.

On my part, I have signed several letters to international leaders concerning the importance of transparency in the adoption process in all countries, particularly in the signatories of the Hague Adoption Convention.

Our recognition of today's Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day provides us with a great opportunity to recognize the unique role and contributions of adoptive families in our country. Families created through adoption are special. They go through so much time and energy to find each other. We must celebrate these families who through perseverance and determination become whole and provide a loving environment for our next generation.

Mr. President, I join Arkansans today in mourning the loss of Cpl Kyle Weston Wilks of Rogers, AR. He paid the ultimate sacrifice to stand up for democracy and peace. We are grateful for Corporal Wilks' service to our Nation and we will honor his memory. I know his family and friends will remember this fallen hero's great smile and penchant for life, including playing sports and watching Razorback football and NASCAR.

A marine with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit since September 2004, Corporal Wilks helped with the evacuation of Beirut in 2006 and most recently served in Afghanistan. During this time, Corporal Wilks was awarded the Good Conduct Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

Before his second deployment, Corporal Wilks visited New York to see Ground Zero, which reaffirmed his commitment to military service and his country. He was a true patriot who planned to use his training as a military policeman to begin a career in law enforcement.

Mr. President, Arkansas has now lost over 70 soldiers in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as I serve in public office, I will work to honor their service, live up to their courage, and protect the principles they fought to preserve.

Corporal Wilks has said his parents, Randy and Kathy Wilks, were his heroes. My prayers are with them, as well as his sister Makayla, during this difficult time.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that has been filed, which may or may not be offered. I wanted to alert the Senate to the possibility of an amendment that deals with moving companies--companies that move families, move furniture, et cetera, from city to city and across State lines--in fact, move them all over the country.

This amendment touches on a bipartisan provision that the Commerce Committee handled 3 years ago, which was, I guess, led by Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lott, and myself. We basically acknowledged that there has been a problem in the moving industry for quite some time. I don't want to go into great detail, but I will be glad to if Senator Bond comes down and offers his amendment.

I want to give a little bit of background. Basically, if you look at the statistics, since 2001, there have been about 25,000 official complaints with the Department of Transportation related to household good carriers transporting goods in interstate commerce. These complaints do cover a wide range of abusive household good carrier practices--everything from fraudulent cost estimates to lost and even damaged goods. So they really do cover the waterfront. However, the most outrageous of these complaints, in my view, is what they call ``hostage goods.''

What happens here is a moving company will move goods, and they will hold a consumer's possessions hostage until they pay thousands of dollars in excess of the original estimate. It is hard to believe that people would treat each other this way, but we have seen this thousands of times around the country, where a moving company will hold goods hostage because they want to chisel more money out of the customer.

Three years ago now, in the Commerce Committee, we looked at this situation. We understood the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration only had five employees assigned for the entire Nation when it comes to household goods and those complaints. Obviously, we had a problem. We worked on a solution. Again, this was a very bipartisan solution.

Part of the solution was to authorize State attorneys general and State consumer protection officials--they are not always AGs; it depends on the State. Usually they are attorneys general offices, but they don't have to be. It would allow the State to enforce certain Federal household goods consumer protection laws and regulations as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. This set up a partnership between the State governments and the Federal Government. We think it has been working well. We are hearing positive feedback.

State attorneys general, back in January of 2004, sent a letter, signed by 48 State attorneys general, saying they would like to have this authority. Let me tell you why. Probably, they have had similar experiences that I had when I was in the attorney general's office in Arkansas. I had a friend of mine who had moved from Florida back to Arkansas; he was moving back with his family, et cetera, et cetera. Literally, his goods--everything he owned--were held hostage by one of these unscrupulous moving companies. Naturally, as the attorney general, I thought surely we could help him. We started looking at it and learned that we were preempted by Federal law. I think he filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, but let me ask my colleagues, who is going to be better at enforcing this and doggedly pursuing relief for their citizens, the State attorney general or the U.S. DOT in Washington--again, with five employees for the whole Nation? That is a pretty easy answer, and that is the State AGs. This is something we crafted, and we believe it is balanced. It came out of committee unanimously. There was compromise. Two Democrats and two Republicans worked together to get compromise language that we believed was fair and, we thought, served the purpose, and we believe it is good law.

I think it is important that it did come out of the committee unanimously. Again, Senator Lott took a real leadership role, and Senator Stevens was involved and Senator Inouye was involved and I was involved. We worked hard to get this done for the committee and for the Senate and for the American people.

As part of all this, we listened to industry complaints. We really did try to go the extra mile with the industry. We even had a hearing held by Chairman Lott on May 4, 2006. We brought in witnesses and allowed moving companies to come in and talk about the situation. Basically, at the conclusion of the hearing, the committee found strong support for our safety provision, including the endorsement of the U.S. DOT inspector general and the FMCSA.

So this has been something that has been vetted, has been agreed to, has been passed by the committee and by the Senate, and it has been signed into law. We think it is a good provision.

Obviously, if there is an amendment on this today, this would not be a technical correction, this would be a big shift in policy. I think that is an important factor for colleagues to consider as they look at this.

Also, if it is offered and if, in fact, I have a chance to come back to the floor and talk about it further, I know there will be a little bit of a comparison to the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill that we filed a few weeks ago, and we passed it on the Senate floor 79 to 13, I believe it was.

I know there will be a little comparison, but this is very different. This is different in a number of ways. It is similar in some ways, but it is different also. And that is, with a consumer recall and with the State being able to enforce a consumer recall once that decision has been made in Washington, there may be thousands, tens of thousands, possibly millions of units of that product out in the American marketplace that has been recalled. Those products may be in warehouses or they may show up on the Internet. There are a lot of different ways they can show up. It can take literally years to get all those products out of the stream of commerce.

The moving industry is very different than that. Almost always what happens with one of these moving companies is something goes on during the move which more often than not is over a few days' period. Oftentimes, it is from one State to another State. The fact situation here is very different.

One of the reasons we are seeing an increase--and even though we passed this law, we are still seeing a fairly steady increase in these types of complaints--is the proliferation of the Internet. You can get on the Internet right now--I did this yesterday as an experiment. I clicked on something such as ``cheap moving companies.'' I don't know exactly what I typed. Several came up. With many of these companies, what you do is click a couple of little buttons to tell how many rooms you have in the house, or something very rudimentary, and you get a quote.

For folks who know about moving, it takes a lot more than that. You cannot make a couple clicks on the computer and think you are going to get an accurate moving estimate.

My experience has been with these large companies, they have written contracts and they have procedures in place. They come out to your home, or wherever you may be, and they look at your goods. They measure, they offer various services for crating, boxing, and all this kind of jazz. They can look, do their measurements and calculations and give you an estimate down to the penny. More often than not, those estimates are very accurate.

The problem is not so much the name-brand companies. I am sure there are occasional problems with them. But the problem we are trying to get to is these companies that are fly by night, many based on the Internet, many of them you do not know with whom you are dealing.

What we are trying to do is clean up this industry and help the American public in any way we can.

Since we passed this legislation, you would think you would see an amazing drop in statistics. We have seen the numbers grow a little bit. Again, it has been fairly steady. We feel as though

we do not have accurate numbers yet. We are actually going to request a GAO study to allow them to do their analysis and see how our provision is working. I think what we will find, once the numbers come in and are analyzed, is some good movement in the right direction.

One point that is important is that under SAFETEA-LU, the FMCSA did not add that many employees. It went from 5 employees to 11 employees. That is still a very small number of employees to do this all over the country. Hopefully, the State attorneys general will be able to help resolve these matters that are very good for the people in their States.

Madam President, I don't know if Senator Bond is going to offer his amendment. He told me earlier he thought he would. I hope he does not. If it does require a vote, certainly I will ask my colleagues to vote against his amendment. If he, in fact, does offer his amendment, I would like to have a chance to respond to Senator Bond. I know Senator Boxer and a few others have indicated their interest in doing that as well.

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

Madam President, it is with great pleasure that today I honor the life of LTC John Edmund Little, a veteran of World War II and a Pearl Harbor survivor. He passed away October 18, 2007, at the age of 92 after serving his country in the U.S. Navy from 1933 to 1937 and in the U.S. Air Force for 19 years from 1940 to 1959.

In 1937, Lieutenant Colonel Little was serving in the U.S. Navy on the USS Colorado, which was the first ship to search for Amelia Earhart around Howland Island in the South Pacific.

As a member of the U.S. Air Force, he was serving in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, when the island was attacked. Lieutenant Colonel Little went on to become a distinguished fighter pilot in the Southwest Pacific, Solomon Islands from 1942 to 1943. In 1943, he became squadron commander of the 44th Fighter Squadron which became the No. 1 squadron in the South Pacific, and was involved in the fatal strike against Admiral Yamamoto. Nine of the original pilots in his squadron were aces.

During his military career, Lieutenant Colonel Little received numerous awards for his hard work and dedication to the United States. These awards include four Air Medals, American Campaigns Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Armed Forces Reserve Medal. My home State of Arkansas is fortunate to have men and women such as Lieutenant Colonel Little who devote their lives to protecting the citizens of this great Nation.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in commemorating LTC John Edmund Little on his service to the United States of America.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of a woman reverend across the State of Arkansas as a humble public servant. Will Etta ``Willie'' Oates, affectionately known as the ``Hat Lady,'' passed away on March 4, 2008. She was loved for her active volunteerism and Arkansas pride.

Although she was born in Kansas, she was an Arkansan through and through. Willie was born to Harry and Fern Long in Arkansas City, KS, on January 14, 1918. She graduated from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville where she was a cheerleader and met her life-long husband, Dr. Gordon Oates. It was at the university that she earned the nickname Willie.

After World War II, Willie began her career of volunteerism in Little Rock. She was selected as Little Rock Woman of the Year in 1955. In 1959, she became the first woman elected to the Arkansas Legislature in more than 30 years.

Yet, it was her ``hat skits'' that captured people's attention. She traveled across Arkansas and more than 40 States speaking, performing her hat skits, judging various competitions, and serving as a grand marshall at many parades. In 1989, she was officially designated by proclamation of the State legislature as ``Arkansas's Hat Lady.''

During her lifetime, Willie belonged to over 50 national, State, and local organizations, served on over 25 boards, and was active in the First Presbyterian Church of Little Rock.

Willie Oates was my dear friend and an inspiration to all that knew her. I pay tribute to this public servant of Arkansas and express my greatest condolences to her family. She will be missed.

Mr. President, this is amendment No. 4181. The cosponsors are Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and Kerry. It is a deficit-neutral reserve fund for science parks. These are sometimes called technology parks or business incubators. But there is no doubt these science parks have a great track record of spurring innovation and job creation at a time when the economy is slowing and international competition is growing. We need to do everything we can to provide good-paying jobs for American workers.

More than 300,000 workers in North America work in a university science park. Every job there generates an average of 2.57 jobs in the economy.

With that, I think we have an agreement that we will voice vote this amendment.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about amendment No. 4181 which, at the appropriate time, I would like to call up but not right now. I will defer to the wisdom of the bill managers and their protocol and procedure they have set up.

This is a deficit-neutral reserve fund amendment. Even though it is deficit-neutral and only a reserve fund, I do think it is important for this country that we agree to this amendment. It deals with science parks. Science parks provide a launch pad that startup companies need when they are spun out of a university or a company. Many are affiliated with a university. They do not have to be. I have legislation I will talk about in a minute that makes it clear that they do not have to be, but nonetheless one of the patterns we see is that they oftentimes are affiliated with a university and that becomes a symbiotic and very productive relationship.

Science parks go by many names. They are also called research parks, technology parks, incubators or business incubators, and technopoles. Whatever we call them, they are good at doing one thing; that is, creating jobs and spurring innovation. That has really been their hallmark, that they create jobs and they spur innovation. At a time when our economy is slowing and international competition is growing, we need to do everything we can in this country to spur innovation and create jobs. These are not just any jobs, these are good-paying jobs, oftentimes high-tech jobs.

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called Building a Stronger America Act, along with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and seven other cosponsors. Many countries, including China, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Japan, and the European Union, are investing heavily in science parks in order to attract a talented and educated workforce. America should too.

My amendment builds on a commitment we made through the America COMPETES Act to develop an infrastructure that will again enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States. We see that things here in this country are undergoing a dramatic transformation. Our economy is changing. Now our economy is really based on knowledge and technology.

The world's first science park was started in the 1950s and led to what we now call Silicon Valley. Another park that was early on in this was designed in North Carolina to stop the brain drain in that State. Today, it is the Research Triangle Park, and it is home to many of the world's most advanced high-tech businesses, and they employ over 40,000 people.

Science parks are often recognized as the gold standard of technology-led economic development. These are formats, these are venues where smart people, scientists, innovators, and entrepreneurs can collaborate, come together and not just come up with ideas but actually come through with the commercialization of new products and new technology.

Last year in the Commerce Committee we had a hearing on science parks, and Dr. Randall Kempner of the Council on Competitiveness said:

American job growth will come primarily from small- and

medium-size businesses and science parks will play a critical

role in accelerating entrepreneurship and innovation.

According to a study by Battelle, the typical North American science park is located in a suburban community with a population of less than a half million. Most parks are operated by university or university- affiliated nonprofits. More than 30,000 workers in North America work in a university science park. Every job in a science park generates an average of 2.57 jobs in the economy. Most of these parks were built in the 1980s and 1990s and really have outgrown their original space. Madam President, 78 percent of science parks expanded beyond their physical presence after they were created.

In Arkansas, we have two excellent examples of successful science parks, first with the Arkansas Research and Technology Park, which is affiliated with the University of Arkansas and within the city limits of Fayetteville. That park today has 27 companies. The average salary for the people who work in that park is $81,000. It is the home of GENESIS Technology Incubator, the Innovation Center, the Engineering Research Center, the High Density Electronics Center, and National Center for Reliable Electric Power Transmission. That is at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. At Arkansas State University at Jonesboro, AR, the Arkansas Bioscience Institute is focused on plant biotechnology and is completing its Commercial Innovation Center as we speak.

Last year, the Arkansas General Assembly established a research park authority to facilitate the development of research parks. The authority and the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce are looking at establishing new science parks to leverage the basic research being done at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, which is also in Little Rock. All three of these groups have told me they need additional funding to meet the growing demand of companies that want to locate in their science parks.

Here again we see an opportunity for the Senate to spur innovation and create jobs for the U.S. economy. This is not a short-term game. But for a small financial commitment from the Congress, we can really spur innovation over the next several decades.

Again, I mentioned Silicon Valley. I mentioned the Research Triangle in North Carolina. Those are two great examples. There is no reason we cannot start this phenomenon all over the country and really build on this knowledge-based and technology-based economy we have today.

I am offering this amendment to try to build in the right budget room. Hopefully, what we will do is later this year, in the coming months--at some point we will pass the broader authorization bill, and then, of course, we will fight the fight when it comes to appropriations at the appropriate time. But I believe strongly this will be a very positive thing for the U.S. economy.

I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and consider the bill. I definitely ask their support for this amendment today.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to each side.

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

Mr. President, again today, we hope it is going to be a short day for the Senate. We hope we will be able to pass the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act on which we have all worked so hard. I thank my colleagues for the fact that every single amendment that has been offered has been germane. That is great. The fact that everybody stayed focused on the subject matter has helped.

I know Senator Stevens, who is on the floor now, will concur that it has been exemplary how Senators have conducted themselves on this bill. We thank everyone, all the Senators and the staff, for keeping the amendments germane. It is very important to getting this bill done this week.

The other good news is, our staffs burned the midnight oil last night, Democrats and Republicans. We have been putting together a managers' package, to give a quick status report on that. We think there are about 12 or so amendments in that managers' package right now that have been agreed to. It looks as if maybe we have around eight amendments that are pending. We are hoping we can work out some issues on some of those amendments. We understand there may be a small number of amendments still coming, but we have run our traps here, so to speak.

Again, the good news is we think we have a manageable number of amendments. We know we are going to have a vote in about 15 minutes. It will be on an amendment that is pending. Again, that is great. We will try to dispense with that amendment, however it comes out. Then we will move on to have further amendments throughout the day.

We are very encouraged. I thank Senator Stevens for his leadership and his staff. They have been great. We appreciate their efforts to try to shepherd this bill through.

I do not want to make a prediction because I don't know and I don't pretend to know how this is going to turn out, but it appears to me that it is possible we could easily finish this bill today. It is possible--I don't want to jinx myself--but maybe even this afternoon. Instead of going into the late evening hours tonight, it is conceivable we might be able to finish it this afternoon if we work hard and stay on task.

I wanted to give the Senate an update. We look forward to the collegial spirit everyone has shown so far. We hope it continues today. I thank everybody for their cooperation and assistance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we think--we are not sure--that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee may be on his way. I know he has a hearing and some other pending business. I know he feels strongly about this amendment.

I rise, in his absence, in opposition to the Vitter amendment. I understand the rationale and the reasons Senator Vitter is offering for this amendment. In fact, when I saw this amendment, I hearkened back to my days in law school. This is a classic moot court competition exercise on who should pay the attorney's fees. The classic English system is that the loser pays, but the American system has been different. It has been different since the founding of our Republic. It has been a bedrock of the American judicial system for well over 200 years that each side pays their own attorney's fees.

There are a lot of reasons for that system. I don't have to go into the history of it. Again, this is a first-year law school topic. I do think it is important in this specific instance that the Senate not break with American jurisprudence, not break with American tradition, and not change this law. It is very important for several reasons. One is, in this case, if the loser has to pay the attorney's fees, we know who the loser is, don't we? It is the State taxpayers. It is not the Federal taxpayers. It is the State taxpayers, our people. Our people will have to pay these attorney's fees.

When you have a matter as important as the public safety and welfare of the people of your State, the attorney general should be allowed to pursue getting these dangerous products off the shelves, keeping their States safe for their people without having to be concerned about this change in the American legal system that Senator Vitter is recommending.

The other point we all need to remember is that there is something in the world of civil litigation called rule 11. Rule 11 is not only under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it is in almost every single State's rules of civil procedure I am aware of--maybe every State. I hate to say that without knowing exactly. I am sure it is in the vast majority of States. Rule 11 allows judges to penalize a lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. That is a very important balanced standard and balanced process, that the legal system has to make sure that no one brings a frivolous lawsuit, but most of all the attorney general.

We also have to remember, as we said yesterday, these attorneys general are not like some lawyer off the street. These are, by and large, elected officials. Mr. President, 42 or 44 State attorneys general are elected by the very same people who elect us. There are a handful who are appointed by a Governor, I think one or two by a legislature, and one by a State supreme court. Regardless, the vast majority are elected by the very same people who elect us. So let's allow the State attorneys general to have the discretion in their States to try to keep their States safe and free of dangerous products.

In closing, there is a compelling interest that these State attorneys general have the ability to get these dangerous products off the shelves. We have seen this, we have talked with a lot of people about this, and we all know that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is overworked. They work hard to do these recalls. Sometimes they take a long time to do them, but, nonetheless, they work very hard to do these recalls. It is beneficial for the whole system to allow the State attorneys general to get these dangerous products out of the marketplace in their States. With all due respect to the CPSC, they do not have the resources to do this, they do not have the people to do this, and they are focused on other issues. They are looking at present-day concerns, not what they dealt with yesterday.

It is very important that we have a strong attorney general enforcement mechanism. I would hate to see it weakened by changing this longstanding American rule of law. I ask all my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object--

I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the Vitter amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to give my colleagues a sense of where we are on the bill. Generally, we have good news. I mentioned an hour or so ago, maybe 2 hours ago, the fact that Senator Stevens and his staff and my staff have worked through a series of amendments. There are 12 or more amendments in a managers' package. There is language that is being worked on now to maybe add more to the managers' package. Various Senators on both sides of the aisle have had constructive amendments, and all amendments have been germane. That is great news. We thank all Senators and their staffs for keeping every single amendment germane. That is very constructive and very positive.

At the moment, we are waiting on some language on some amendments that maybe can be agreed to further without rollcall votes. We would love to set up some rollcall votes at some point in the next few hours.

As I said earlier, I do not want to say this and regret it, but the way things are going, certainly this has the feel that we could possibly finish this bill this afternoon rather than this evening. If we have to work into the night or even into tomorrow, we will do that. Given the cooperative spirit and the nature of the amendments and the collegiality of Senators on this legislation, I think we can definitely finish today. As I said, I know a lot of Senators who would love to be able to wrap this up and get out of here earlier than they expected. That would be great news if we could pull that off. We are working very hard for that result.

Again, I thank the staff of all the Senators who have been working on these amendments with us. I thank the Senators because it has been a very productive week and a very constructive process.

I wish to talk about one of the issues that is outstanding. We may have a vote on it later today. We don't know yet. It is a whistleblower provision. I wish to inform my colleagues of the goal we had of writing into the bill whistleblower protection. We want to make sure that when people come across a safety violation and they tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission about it, they not be punished for doing the right thing.

We tried to find a balance in this issue. This provision has changed quite a bit throughout the course of the life of this bill. We have to remember there is a compelling Government interest in the public's safety and welfare. So we are trying to find that balance. We are certainly trying to protect the public's safety and welfare. We want to keep these dangerous products out of the stream of commerce, but at the same time, we have heard the concerns and the objections mostly by the business community.

Let me say this about whistleblower protection: I know this has been a source of much debate and many votes in the Senate over the last several Congresses. I remind my colleagues that whistleblower protection is not a novel idea. This is not a new concept. We actually see whistleblower protection in many Federal laws this Congress has passed.

Since the year 2000, Congress has passed several whistleblower laws that have been very similar to what we have drafted in S. 2663, including Air 21, for airline workers; Sarbanes-Oxley, for employees of publicly traded corporations; the Pipeline Safety Act, for oil pipeline employees; the Energy Policy Act, for nuclear workers; the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act, for railroad and public transportation workers; and even as recently as this year in the Defense Authorization Act.

We have drafted our provision based on existing law. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act is the model we use to try to extend whistleblower protection under narrow circumstances in this act.

I will give a few examples. I will limit it to two real-life examples. In 2002, a product designer for a lighting manufacturer was fired after he informed management about the dangerous conditions of certain lighting products, and he refused to violate the law by passing the products on to the customers before they were thoroughly tested. That person did not have any recourse when he was terminated by his company.

We understand, we are very sensitive to a company's desire to have employees who can follow instructions and can be productive, but at the same

time, there is a compelling public interest in the fact that we are talking about the safety of our citizens in this country.

Another example from 1995: An employee of a wire and cable company reported there was a shipment of defective wire. He reported that to a customer because he was concerned the wire would be used in fire alarms in hotels, residences, and high-rise buildings. The employee refused the company's directive to ignore the problems with that wire, and he was fired.

Not to get into the details of that case, but we see that whistleblower protection, if we build in the right parameters, might make sense. What we did through this process is we tried to listen to the business community's concern. There has been a myth floating out there that if this law passes, then a business will never be able to fire a disruptive employee. That is not true. Certainly, we are trying to find that balance. Whistleblower protections would not protect an employee who is going to be fired anyway. It would not protect a disruptive employee who is not a good employee. The employee has the burden of proof of establishing a prima facie showing. They have to make a prima facie case that they were terminated because they had told the CPSC about a problem. The employer has an affirmative defense of showing they would have done the same thing with this employee regardless of the fact that he or she informed the CPSC of a violation.

Also, there is a provision in the bill that if the employee files a frivolous claim and tries to hide behind this whistleblower protection, that employee may have to pay up to a $1,000 penalty throughout the course of the whistleblower process.

We have tried to listen to the concerns of the business community. We are trying to get the proper information to the CPSC to make sure that if there is a problem out there, it is brought to their attention as early as possible. And if an employee wants to do the right thing, with these safeguards built in place, he or she will not be terminated because they are trying to make sure these products are safe in the U.S. marketplace.

Senator Stevens has walked into the Chamber. So far the news today has been good. We are disposing of matters. We encourage any Senator who wants to come down and speak on their amendment or any Senator who wants a vote to please let us know. So far it has been a very constructive process. I thank all my colleagues for their spirit of cooperation today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wicker be recognized at 2 p.m. today to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in welcoming officially the new Senator from Mississippi and thank him for his service in the House and his service in the Senate. Certainly, it was great to hear his maiden speech today.

One of the aspects that is so true about the Senate is every Senator can

make a difference. That is one of the challenges I think all 100 of us carry with us every day--to go out there and make a positive difference for this country and for the world.

I welcome Senator Wicker to the Senate.

Mr. President, I will give a very brief status report on the consumer product safety bill. Right now, we have been working through amendments all day. There have been several agreements. The managers' package is growing, which is good news. We are hopeful that we can have just a few amendments to be voted on and then have final passage. We do not have an agreement on that, but we are trying to reach an agreement right now. I wanted to alert Senators and their staffs that we would love to wrap this up, again, this afternoon. If we have to go into this evening, we can. But the sense right now on the floor, in talking with everyone who has been on the floor, Senators and staff who have been working through amendments, working through issues, we are still hopeful we can finish this bill this afternoon. We hope that is good news for Senators.

We, once again, encourage any Senator who wants to come to the Chamber and speak on this bill to try to come down as soon as they can because hopefully we will get to final passage this afternoon at some point.

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I want to again inform Senate colleagues and staff on the Hill that we are making great progress. I know we have been in a quorum call for some time, but the truth is, we have been making very steady and solid progress.

We are hoping to get this bill to final passage this afternoon. There are a couple of amendments that we are still working through. We would love to reach an agreement with both sides to have a specific time to start a series of votes to get us out of here this afternoon. Again, for all of the staff and the Senators who are watching, now is the time, if you want to make one last pitch for either an amendment or a change in something, because everybody has been working very hard today and this week to get this done.

So we do not have anything locked in, but certainly we would love to start this last series of votes sooner rather than later. I have talked with several Senators and they have worked very hard. They would love to see us wrap this up as quickly as possible. I think we are very close to doing that.

Again, we are talking cloakroom to cloakroom, manager to manager, staff to staff, trying to get the last details worked out. So we are very hopeful we will have good news very shortly. We are very proud of the work that all of the Senators and staff have done to get us to this point on this important piece of legislation.

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

Yes, it is. Compliance with proposition 65's warning requirements would only complement the CPSC Reform Act.

No. First, the CPSC Reform Act bans lead in children's products beyond trace amounts. Under section 22, any children's product that contains lead ``shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.'' While the Commission is directed to examine whether it is possible to lower the trace levels permitted under the bill, no action is required with respect to labeling requirements that might inadvertently trigger a preemption of proposition 65. It is the intent of the CPSC Reform Act to get rid of lead from children's products, not to inadvertently preempt a consumer- friendly and valuable law such as proposition 65.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be added as a cosponsor to the Feinstein amendment No. 4104.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, once again, I hope I have good news. I am hoping the next time I address the Senate on this microphone that we will be asking unanimous consent for votes or a vote, maybe in this case, on final passage.

I again alert Hill staff and Senators that we are very close. I thank all my colleagues. I could go through a long list. While I have just a moment while they are literally wrapping up the final i's and t's on this document, I thank Senator Stevens for his great leadership in helping shepherd this bill through; Senator Inouye, of course, for his leadership and what he brings to the table and how he runs his committee is fantastic; Senator Collins--I mentioned her yesterday-- came in at a critical time and made the bill better; Senator Bill Nelson of Florida who spoke a few moments ago--Senator Bill Nelson in some ways started this whole process. He filed a bill over the summer-- June, July, September, I am not quite sure. He filed a bill about third-party testing for toys. We had already been working on a bill. He went ahead and put his bill out there publicly and spurred a lot of interest. And Senator Klobuchar, who is presiding right now, has been working on this bill every step of the way. Senator Durbin, of course, has made a lot of improvements. Senator Schumer has played a vital role in trying to get this bill shaped and ready to go.

I again thank all my colleagues for their hard work. There are too many to go through right now because almost all 100 Senators had some role in this bill and have helped in some way or another. I wished to acknowledge them and hopefully the next time I stand up here, we will be propounding a unanimous consent request on votes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I do have good news. This is similar to the old Bob Dylan song, ``Slow Train Coming.'' It has been a slow afternoon, seemingly, but there has been a lot of activity.

I ask unanimous consent to agree to the Feinstein amendment by voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up the following

amendments en bloc: Klobuchar No. 4088; Dodd No. 4092, with modifications at the desk; McCaskill No. 4101; Boxer No. 4112; Landrieu No. 4120; Collins No. 4123; Klobuchar No. 4128; Nelson No. 4130, with modifications at the desk; Obama No. 4113; Obama No. 4114; Durbin-Hatch No. 4141; Inouye No. 4136; Inouye No. 4137; Inouye No. 4138; Snowe No. 4143; Kyl No. 4116, with modifications at the desk; and Kyl No. 4118, with modifications at the desk; the following pending amendments also be considered en bloc: Pryor No. 4090; Cardin No. 4103; Dorgan No. 4098; Casey No. 4109, with modifications at the desk; and Cornyn No. 4108, with modifications at the desk; the amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that cloture be withdrawn; any remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; the Senate proceed to third reading of the bill; the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 562, H.R. 4040, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of S. 2663, as amended; the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 4040, as amended, and S. 2663 be returned to the calendar.

Having reached this agreement, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, at 4:55 p.m., and the time until 4:55 be equally divided between Senators Pryor and Stevens or their designees.

Mr. President, I have a list of people to thank, but because we have Senators who would like to vote and some would like to catch airplanes or get on to further meetings this evening, I will wait on that until after we vote.

I am glad to yield back all time on our side.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are in a period of morning business. I want to pause for 1 minute and thank all of the cosponsors on this legislation. There was a committee bill and the bill that passed the floor a few moments ago. I thank everybody who helped work on this, even those who voted against it. Many of them offered very constructive suggestions and amendments.

Let me start by thanking Senator Collins. She has been fantastic throughout this whole process. Senator Harkin, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Lincoln, of course Senator Salazar, Senator Brown, Senator Menendez, Senator Casey, Senator Wyden, and even though I don't think Senator McCaskill was ever a cosponsor, she helped in the last few days on some drafting.

There are two whom I need to single out, and one is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who went to bat and worked through a lot of issues that made this vote today possible, as well as our chairman Senator Inouye, first because I appreciate very much him giving me the opportunity to manage the bill. He designated me a year ago to try to work on this legislation, and I will always be grateful to him for his leadership and giving me this opportunity.

I also thank members of the staff. We all know we get the credit, we get the publicity, and we are sort of the face, but we could not do this job we do without great staff. So I have a little bit of a long list, but they all deserve some recognition: Alex Hoehn-Saric, David Strickland, Mia Petrini, Jared Bomberg, Mellissa Zolkeply, Margaret Cummisky, Lila Helms, and Jean Toal-Eisen.

These are all members of the Commerce staff on the Democratic side. I cannot tell my colleagues--I cannot exaggerate how many hours they put into this legislation.

Then on my staff: Price Feland, Andy York, and many others helped, but those two went the extra mile, especially Price, who was fantastic.

On Senator Durbin's staff: David Lazarus, Tom Faletti, Dena Morris, and Chris Kang, all of whom helped in many ways.

On Senator Reid's staff: Mike Castellano and Mark Weitjen.

On Senator Klobuchar's staff: Tamara Fucile and Katie Nilan.

On Senator Nelson's staff: Chris Day.

Then on the Republican side of the Commerce Committee, I will tell my colleagues they were fantastic and they spent hours and hours and hours working through issues and through this process. They played an important role.

So my thanks to Paul Nagle, Megan Beechener, Mark Delich, Peter Phipps, Rebecca Hooks, and Christine Kurth.

Again, oftentimes the Senators get the credit for things, but we do not give the staff enough credit.

On Senator Collins' staff: Asha Mathews was critical, and she was great in helping in many different ways with Senator Collins who played a very important part in this legislation.

I thank my colleagues for this week. I know we worked very hard and we were very persistent. But one of the great things about this week is we saw what the Senate can do. We saw if we make up our minds that we are going to do something good for this country, the Senate can do it. We worked together. We kept all the nongermane amendments off the bill. We had several on our side, and there were a few over here. We had more on our side, but we kept all of those nongermane amendments off the bill. We had a spirit of cooperation and collegiality and it was great. It was fun to be a part of it. It reminds me, once again, how great an institution the Senate is.

I again one last time thank all of my colleagues for their support and all the floor staff here for doing all the great things they did to get us where we are today. This is a great day for the Senate and a great day for the American people. Now this bill will have to go to conference and the hard work starts. But I feel confident that we will be able to work with our House colleagues, who worked so hard on their legislation to get something done, and hopefully in the next several weeks, whenever that may be, it will come back to the Senate for the final vote and we can get it to the White House.

I yield the floor.