Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disappointment and frustration with provisions included in this conference report that severely weaken critical consumer protection law for those that ship household goods using commercial movers.

As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, as a former State attorney general, and as a leading member of the Committee's Surface Transportation Subcommittee for motor carrier issues, I must express my outrage that this conference report undermines the consumer protections for victims of unscrupulous movers that were part of the transportation bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, signed into law less than 4 months ago.

These provisions were inserted despite commitments I received to the contrary. We had an agreement that we would not seek to modify the household goods consumer protection language within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction beyond an amendment that was offered as part of the floor consideration of this appropriations bill in the Senate.

Instead, over the objections of myself, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Lott, and the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, this new language was forced into the conference report in order to protect a few big moving companies from increased public accountability.

Adding insult to injury, provisions that were specifically rejected during the conference on the transportation bill this summer were included in addition to language that goes well beyond those items and further undercuts the work Congress did to aid consumers who face fraud, extortion, and abuse at the hands of unregulated moving companies.

As a former State attorney general, I know the public benefits from local and State officials who are dedicated to protecting consumers. Over the past year, picking up on work begun by Senator McCain, and working with Senators Lott, Inouye, and Stevens, I have tried to find ways to assist the many citizens from all across this country who have been victimized by moving companies and have nowhere to turn.

The most outrageous situation is when a moving company holds all of a consumer's possessions until they pay thousands of dollars in excess of the original estimate for the move. This practice, known as ``hostage goods,'' is extortion, plain and simple. And it leaves consumers helpless in a strange city, with none of their possessions and no recourse.

I say helpless because, although there are some Federal laws to protect consumers when shipping their goods in interstate commerce-- protections we enhanced with the passage of SAFETEA-LU--the Department of Transportation, DOT, is simply not suited to police the 1.5 million interstate moves that occur each year.

In 1995, the predecessor of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, assumed the regulatory duties of the household goods moving industry previously carried out by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Until recently, FMCSA had a total of 3 personnel assigned to handle all of the consumer complaints for the entire Nation and could do little about them. I understand that FMCSA has received nearly 20,000 consumer complaints since January 2001. They have taken little action in this area because FMCSA contends that its limited resources must be focused on truck safety, the agency's primary mission.

States, which want to get involved and already oversee consumer protections for the intrastate movement of household goods with little controversy, have been told by the courts that they have no jurisdiction in this area, since it involves interstate commerce. The net result is that moving companies operating in interstate commerce face no regulation of their commercial behavior, and therefore, continue to take advantage of consumers.

To address this glaring problem, SAFETEA-LU created a partnership with the states by allowing them to enforce certain Federal consumer protections rules as determined by the Secretary of Transportation--a model that works well in other areas.

It is so disheartening that only a few months after these new authorities were put in place--before they could even take effect and be put to use to protect consumers--these provisions have been reopened and basically gutted on behalf of a few big moving companies that want to keep operating without real oversight.

The household goods provisions added to this conference report will: limit a State attorneys general's ability to initiate an action to enforce Federal household goods consumer protection law to only cases involving new moving companies or those who egregiously violate Federal motor carrier safety regulations. The effect of this provision is to totally insulate most movers, particularly larger and more-established moving companies, from even the threat of action by a State, regardless of how outrageous their violation of Federal consumer protection law may be.

Further, the provisions will: apply these same enforcement limitations to State authorities that already regulate intrastate movers and require that the State consumer agencies enforcing Federal household goods consumer laws bring their cases in Federal courts only, where they would languish on average for 3 more years. What are consumers supposed to do while everything they own is being held hostage by a mover during those 3 years?

I believe these provisions go well beyond anything the Commerce Committee would ever have agreed to, had we the opportunity to consider these directly. The only thing positive I can say about them is that they are set to end after Fiscal Year 2006.

This language is an affront to all authorizing committees that--after years of discussion--agreed upon these provisions. It is wrong that those who did not get what they wanted--were rejected both in the Senate and in conference--can then hijack the consumer protection provisions that this Congress approved in July.

The passage of the SAFETEA-LU household goods language signaled Congress's willingness to stand up for the consumer and correct an injustice that occurs far too often. It is sad that this conference report seeks to undo this achievement and make it significantly more difficult for our citizens to get the recourse they deserve.

State attorneys general and State consumer protection agencies are much more likely than the Federal Government to doggedly pursue justice for their citizens in these cases. A letter from the National Association of Attorneys General on January 21, 2004, proves this point, by indicating the association's full support for State enforcement of Federal household goods consumer protections. The letter, signed 48 State attorneys general, specifically rejects complaints from the moving industry against this new authority.

In conclusion, let me say that I appreciate the work of the other House and Senate appropriations conferees and my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee for trying to keep these provisions out of their bill. It is unfortunate that they ended up being included, and I plan to work to see that they are overturned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, as Veterans Day approaches, we pay homage to the soldiers who once stormed the beaches of Normandy, reclaimed the mountains of Korea and crossed the sands of Kuwait. We pay homage to our veterans' sacrifice and courage, and also to the brave men and women who now follow their example in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In paying respect, we must also follow through on our Nation's commitment's to ensure our veterans receive the benefits they earned and deserve.

Arkansas has a long and distinguished record of service, one that my State is proud of, and one that we will continue to build upon. In addition to honorable service by our active duty soldiers, marines, seamen and airmen, the Arkansas National Guard has mobilized more than 8,000 of its guardsmen since Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, this Veterans Day is an especially poignant one for families in Rogers, AR where 180 guardsmen have just been deployed to serve in Iraq.

Arkansas is not alone in its commitment to military service. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are 393,000 new veterans to care for, including 103,000 who are currently seeking health care from VA hospitals.

We can never truly repay our veterans for their service to our Nation, but we can care for them just as they cared for us. In honor of these men and women, Senator Norm Coleman and I have introduced the Veterans Benefits Outreach Act to help ensure that all veterans collect the benefits they have earned but for whatever reason are not receiving.

Nearly 600,000 veterans nationwide are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to, often due to a simple lack of knowledge that they are eligible.

Instead of veterans having to cut through bureaucracy to learn about and receive the various benefits they earn, our bill seeks to bring this information to them. It requires the VA to prepare a plan to identify veterans who are not enrolled in programs they are eligible for and an action plan to enroll them.

This measure represents an opportunity to help our current veterans and meet the challenges we foresee instead of waiting until benefit problems escalate for a new generation of veterans. I hope this Veterans Day will add the necessary momentum for the full Senate to consider and pass this measure.

We owe this to veterans like Chaplain--Colonel--David McLemore--a soldier's soldier who has dedicated a career to providing outreach to service men and women in the field.

Chaplain McLemore is a native Arkansan and has served as a chaplain in the Arkansas Army National Guard for 21 years. During that time he has served soldiers at the company, battery, battalion, and brigade level. He has personally answered the call to duty in two wars, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

In both of these conflicts, Chaplain McLemore served on the front lines with combat units, where he ministered to soldiers conducting the day-to-day fight with the enemy. Chaplain McLemore always chose to be up front providing a ``Ministry of Presence'' to those in the greatest place of danger.

Those who served in combat with Chaplain McLemore knew that he would always be there with a listening ear, an open heart, and a guiding hand. His mere presence gave courage and inspiration to those who knew that they could lose their lives at any minute.

As any chaplain, Chaplain McLemore did not carry a weapon as he faced the perils of combat, but the soldiers he served with knew that he carried more firepower than any of them, the grace and word of God, and they always wanted Chaplain McLemore and that firepower with them.

They knew that he risked his life every day for one mission, to serve them. In the simple but strong bond of combat, it was clear that Chaplain McLemore loved his fellow soldiers and they loved him.

Two months after his return from Operation Iraqi Freedom II, Chaplain McLemore was involved in a motorcycle accident where he sustained severe injuries. Today, he fights to recover from those injuries in the Veterans Administration Hospital in North Little Rock, AR.

As he does, he has the prayers, respect, and encouragement from us and all of his fellow soldiers. We honor him today for his commitment and selfless service to God, his country, and his fellow soldiers. Thank you, Chaplain David McLemore. God Bless and Godspeed.

We owe all our veterans not only our gratitude, but also our freedoms and American way of life. Our military has kept us safe for a long time. We cannot thank them enough, but we can begin to repay their sacrifices by providing them with the resources they need in the field and the support they have earned when they return home.

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

Mr. President, the average American might not follow the intricacies of our budget reconciliation process. However, they do know when the government has misplaced its priorities, shirked its responsibilities and shortchanged the families who need help the most.

Given our record budget deficits, I am prepared to make tough decisions to cut government spending, but what this bill represents is a misguided effort to balance the budget on the backs of hard-working families.

I question the rationale of some of my colleagues in this body who propose providing tax breaks for multimillionaires and special interests, while cutting resources that are critical to the families of Arkansas. For example, I am particularly disappointed that this package slashes: health care by $27 million for seniors and the poor; agriculture supports for farmers by $3 billion.

Mr. President, I want to tell you about Maya Romney of Arkansas. A Down's syndrome patient, Maya is able to receive critical therapies through Easter Seals, allowing her to interact in a classroom setting and live more independently. Quite simply, Maya's therapy services could be in jeopardy because Easter Seals is funded primarily through Medicaid. And while this saddens me greatly, it should also sadden everyone in this body because we all have Mayas in our State or others who depend on Medicaid.

This program, that some of my colleagues look to cut, provides vital resources for persons with disabilities and seniors. In my State, almost 50 percent of our Medicaid recipients are children. Additionally, 958 beneficiaries in Arkansas right now are Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

I know that in the long-term we can find ways to save money and improve the efficiency of Medicaid--in fact the Senate has supported measures to do just that. But, it is unacceptable to impose arbitrary cuts for a program that does so much to support families. By taking away these services we are endangering the health of too many Americans.

As an Arkansan, I am particularly disappointed in proposed cuts to agriculture. I know that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee has worked hard to make sure these cuts are distributed fairly, and he has done the best he can. I commend him for that.

But now is not the time to be cutting our support of agriculture in this country. Our farmers have gone through too much in the past year-- rising energy costs, drought, and storm damage. They need us now more than ever.

But instead of reaching out to help the community that feeds America, some of my colleagues have proposed slashing $3 billion from agricultural programs, and imposing further payment limits that will dramatically hurt family farms.

Rural America is fed up. It seems as though every time this administration has needed to find revenue, whether to pay for the war in Iraq, cut the deficit, or provide relief from Hurricane Katrina, agriculture has been first on the chopping block.

Our farmers know they must do their fair share, but they are currently doing much more than that.

For the government's part, we should be investing in rural America not taking from it. There is enormous potential in rural communities and we should harness that potential to help drive our economy.

Now as I said earlier, the budget process requires us to take responsibility in balancing our books. But in the dense pages of the reconciliation package, we have lost sight of fiscal responsibility and are blithely ignoring several issues that will affect our budget for years to come.

After the Senate considers these budget cuts we will then vote on a set of tax breaks totaling $70 billion. It is no secret that the only reason we are looking at these budget cuts is to make room for tax cuts--most of which could be argued will not make it in to the pockets of people that need it the most.

And oddly enough, some of the tax cuts that we will be voting on, such as the capital gains and dividends cuts do not even expire for another 2 years.

But even more baffling is the fact that neither this budget bill or the tax cut bill we will consider in the coming weeks takes into account the billions of dollars we have spent and will continue to spend in Iraq. Neither bill takes into account the billions of dollars we have spent and will spend in the gulf coast.

I have voted for tax cuts in the past, and I will vote for them in the future but if we were truly being honest brokers this body would have the courage to look at all of our fiscal issues in a single package. Instead, we seem content to legislate in a vacuum where we refuse to recognize the reality of our fiscal situation.

We separate tax cuts bill from the budget bill, and the budget bill from emergency spending bill because deep down we know that we are wrong. We know that if we were to look at this fiscal puzzle as a whole, there would be no way to justify our actions. We would have to finally admit that we are being fiscally irresponsible.

Overall, this measure shows America that their government is willing to turn their backs on the families who need our help the most in order to provide favors for special interest groups. I cast my vote in opposition to this bill: it does not reflect my priorities, and it certainly does not reflect America's priorities.

Mr. President, I would like to express my serious concerns about efforts today, and possibly during the conference committee, that could dramatically cut Medicaid funding through this bill. Medicaid provides vital services for millions of Americans, especially persons with disabilities, children, and seniors. As we all know, access to health care is critically important for improving the quality of life and promoting greater independence for these individuals.

In my State alone, 17 percent of Arkansans depend on the Medicaid Program. An additional 1,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees currently residing in Arkansas are receiving their health care through the State's Medicaid Program. It is essential that State Medicaid Programs and patients get the

support they need, particularly at a time when States are facing budgetary crises and struggling to deal with skyrocketing costs associated with providing health care.

I understand that tough financial decisions have to be made in order keep this country's fiscal house in order, but I do not believe it is fair that we require our seniors, our children, and the disabled to shoulder this burden. It is simply unacceptable to impose arbitrary cuts for a program that does so much to support families in need. I believe we can find appropriate savings in Medicaid without jeopardizing the health care of so many Americans, and this body has supported measures to do that in the past. For example, I supported a bill to charge the Institutes of Medicine with evaluating Medicaid to find appropriate cost savings and improve efficiency within the program. But the proposals many Members of the House of Representatives are promoting in their version of this legislation completely fail to consider the implications for the health and well-being of Medicaid recipients. Rather, these cuts would have more to do with paying for tax cuts targeted to benefit the wealthiest Americans.

I believe Senator Grassley and some members of the Finance Committee tried hard to soften the blow of the cuts required by the budget resolution, but I recognize that a much worse bill will likely emerge from the conference committee with the House of Representatives, and we will likely regret starting down this slope toward drastic cuts to an essential part of our Nation's health care system.

I have heard from many organizations and constituents who have expressed their concerns. Dana Plunkett and Angela Romney have both sent letter expressing their concerns for their children. Both of these mothers' children participate in the Easter Seals program which relies heavily on Medicaid. Dana's son Larry is able to live in an independent living facility because of Medicaid. Angela's daughter Maya who has Down's syndrome has been able to receive vital therapies to allow her to interact in a classroom setting and live more independently.

I am aware of the challenges many families, health care providers, States, and private payers for health care face under our burdened health care system. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a solution to adequately fund Medicaid and avoid gutting the program during conference negotiations.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that you tell me when my 4 minutes is up, if that is at all possible.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Grassley amendment. It is hard for me to do that in the sense that I agree with Chairman Grassley on so many things, but I disagree with him on this amendment.

The 2000 farm bill is a contract, something the Congress entered into, and I think it is a terrible mistake to change the terms of that contract in midstream.

In fact, the USDA had a bipartisan payment limit commission. They looked at it. They concluded the same thing: Don't change the rules in the middle of the game. I do not think any business, much less our family farmers, can have any kind of business plan when the rules change and the rules become very unpredictable.

I thank my colleague Senator Chambliss of Georgia, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He has done an outstanding job of trying to be fair when we look at this issue to make sure not one crop or one section of the country is being singled out to carry a disproportionate amount of the pain.

Recently, the WTO made a decision in a cotton case involving Brazil, so our cotton farmers have lost an important program known as Cotton Step II. We are going to add to the burden of our cotton farmers, and add to the burden of our peanut producers and our rice farmers. The biggest concern I have other than that, in addition to the concept of this, is the idea of timing. It could not be worse. When you look at the Southern States--Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Florida--we are reeling from hurricanes right now, all over that section of the country. In fact, the University of Arkansas Extension Service has estimated there is $900 million worth of hurricane-related crop damage in our State alone--$900 million worth.

Then we look at our farmers. They are paying record energy prices. They have these meritless WTO challenges. They have had storm damage. They have had the worst drought in my State that we have had in 50 years. I think it is a terrible time for us to be adding to their burden.

Of course, there are also many myths that have been perpetrated by people who do not like some of these farm programs. One of these groups--I don't know exactly anything about this group--but the Environmental Working Group says there is a farmer in my State, some guy named Riceland, who is taking boatloads of Federal dollars and subsidies.

Who is Riceland? Riceland is not one farmer. There is not one guy down there named Riceland. Riceland is a farm-owned cooperative. There are 9,000 family farmers who are members of this one cooperative. So, sure, if you bundle all 9,000 up and look, that is a lot of money. But when you look at all these 9,000 separate, independently owned farming operations, you get to see a more accurate picture.

So let's stick with the facts. The facts are this country has the most stable, the most abundant, the safest, the most affordable food and fiber of any country in the world. One thing I would hate to see is us be dependent on foreigners for our food supply. Right now, unfortunately, we are dependent on energy. I think that is a matter of national security. If we ever become dependent on foreign countries for our food, that would be a matter of national security.

Our trade deficit is at an all-time high. We are witnessing--this set of Senators--our manufacturing base in this country evaporating before our very eyes. Do we want to do this to our farm economy? I say no. I say we need to understand we get a big return on the investment we make in our agriculture programs. In fact, all the programs combined-- everything total--is less than one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget.

One of the great strengths America has is we are able to feed ourselves and, if we are given the opportunity, to feed the world.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I today 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.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fayetteville Public Library on receiving this well-deserved honor.

Mr. President, I join Arkansans in mourning the loss of Rosa Parks, known throughout the Nation as the ``Mother of the Freedom Movement.''

As people line up to pay their respects to Mrs. Parks in the Capitol Rotunda today, I cannot help but remember the incredible impact she had on our Nation. Rosa Parks is the first woman to lie in the Capitol Rotunda, which is a testament that her actions are just as significant today as they were in 1955.

Mrs. Parks once remarked that her show of defiance to move to the back of the bus was simply because she was tired of being humiliated, tired of following archaic rules forbidding her from sitting in the front of a public bus or entering public buildings through the front door. But, history will remember Rosa Parks for shaking America's conscience and changing the course of our Nation for the better.

Mrs. Parks' courage to sit down for equal rights ignited others to stand up for theirs.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., stood up to call for equality and justice for all Americans, inspiring and organizing thousands of activists to stand up with him. Four students in Greensboro, NC, sat in at a Woolworth's lunch counter, standing up for their right to be served.

And, Daisy Bates led the Little Rock Nine to stand up for their right to an equal education. The Little Rock Nine taught America that ``separate'' was not ``equal.'' Nine Black students--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals--defied hatred and threats to attend the all-White Central High School for a better education.

Of Rosa Parks' battle for equality, Minnijean Brown Trickey said:

I don't think until the bus boycott we had a sense of our

power. . . . The general feeling was if she could do it, we

could do it. She was really a heroine to us. She was an

ordinary woman and we were ordinary kids and it seems we had

a relationship.

As a former student of Central High, I can attest to the influence Rosa Parks and the Little Rock Nine continue to have in the hallways today.

We know that Rosa Parks' inspiring story lives on in the pages of every history textbook across America. Her legacy also endures at the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, which she founded in Detroit. The center offers career training and encourages teens to stay in school and take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

I am just one of millions of Americans who admired Rosa Parks' tenacity and life's work. She earned countless accolades and awards for her efforts in the civil rights movement, including the Congressional Gold Medal Award--the Nation's highest civilian honor. In honoring Mrs. Parks with the Medal of Freedom, President Clinton reminded us that:

Freedom's work is never done. There are still people who

are discriminated against. There are still people that

because of their human condition are looked down on, derided,

degraded, demeaned, and we should all remember the powerful

example of this one citizen. And those of us with greater

authority and power should attempt every day, in every way,

to follow her lead.

Although Rosa Parks served as a catalyst to get the wheels turning in the civil rights movement, our journey is not completed. We can honor her memory by continuing her work to stand up for equality and justice for all Americans.

Still, this was the reality of more than 100 years of history. Change was not favored. It had been and would be resisted.

Of course, while the South was open and notorious about its segregation policies, research in recent years has shown that there were places all over this great land that secretly or overtly discriminated against those of African decent. But in the South, discrimination was not only openly acknowledged; it was the law of the land. The fact was that in Montgomery, AL, on December 1, 1955, it was the law of the city of Montgomery that ``colored'' persons on city buses must sit in the back. As one who loves and admires his home state and her people--I believe there are none finer--this is painful to acknowledge, but facing the painful truth is essential for reconciliation and progress.

So, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, refused to go to the back of the bus--a city bus--in violation of city law. And it sparked, and sparked is the right word, a nationwide confrontation--a confrontation between our American ideals, and our religious concepts, and the grim reality of that day.

Southerners were angry, embarrassed, resistant, introspective, hostile, and pained. They watched, much like I did in Hybart, the drama unfold and they were forced to deal with an ugly reality they would rather have ignored.

Rosa Parks' gumption resulted in a 382 day boycott of the city bus system let by a young 26-year-old preacher, new to town, at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, a block from the Capitol--A Capitol building proudly known as the First Capital of the Confederacy. That young preacher, of course, was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And, there was a young attorney, Mr. Fred Gray, who had come back to Alabama after receiving his degree from Case Western Reserve University determined to ``become a lawyer, return to Alabama, and destroy everything segregated I could find.'' He would become a legend in his own right, being a part of some of the most historic cases in civil rights and American history. The young Federal trial Judge, an Eisenhower appointee, Judge Frank M. Johnson, would become perhaps the most courageous, clear, and authoritative judicial voice for equal justice in America. And, the lawyer who argued the case for Rosa Parks in the U.S. Supreme Court-- Thurgood Marshall--who would later sit on that very court.

The very words, ``the back of the bus'' went to the heart of the problem. Separate was not equal; it was not fair; it was discriminatory against a class of Americans solely because of the color of their skin. I knew Judge Frank Johnson. He was courageous and followed the law. He did not believe he was an activist. He did not believe he was amending the constitution. Judge Johnson believed he was simply being faithful to the plain words of the constitution--words that guaranteed everyone ``equal protection of the laws.'' Sending someone to the back of the bus because of the color of their skin violated that principle he ruled, and the Supreme Court agreed.

This simple act by a courageous woman, a seamstress, but one who was well aware of the danger she faced, at 42-years of age, sparked the civil rights movement and justly earned her the title ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.''

Today, in Montgomery, AL, there exists a museum--part of Troy State University--that sits on the spot where she was arrested. It has a school bus, like the one she rode that day, which has interactive capabilities so that children can sit in it and get a better feel for the events of the day. It has more exhibits, and I commend this fine, historical museum to any who would want to learn more of Rosa Parks and the movement she sparked. I was pleased to sponsor legislation that this Congress passed to provide funds to help establish the museum.

While there are many problems between the races today, the de jure, the statutes and ordinances that enforced segregation are gone. And, I am proud that the people of Montgomery have come to see the positive benefits of ending discrimination and that they have chosen to honor Mrs. Parks in this way.

Everyone knows, virtually everyone, that as a result of the movement she sparked, today's Montgomery is a different and better place. Today we also look with pride on the historic Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, that once heard the powerful sermons of a young Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And we look with respect on the Civil Rights Memorial--a striking monument of black granite and cascading water--which honors those who gave their lives in the pursuit of equal justice.

Thus, it is true: Ms. Parks' efforts helped spark the dynamic social changes that have made it possible for positive and historical change for Montgomery, Alabama, and America. But, in fact, Ms. Parks' contributions extend beyond even the borders of our Nation. In his book Bus Ride to Justice, Mr. Fred Gray, who gained fame while in his 20's as Ms. Parks' attorney, and as one of the early African-American attorneys in Alabama--he was a lead attorney in many of Alabama's other famous civil rights cases--wrote--and I do not believe it is an exaggeration--these words:

Little did we know that we had set in motion a force that

would ripple though Alabama, the South, and the Nation, and

even the world. But from the vantage point of almost 40 years

later, there is a direct correlation between what we started

in Montgomery and what has subsequently happened in China,

eastern Europe, South Africa and, even more recently, in

Russia. While it is inaccurate to say that we all sat down

and deliberately planned a movement that would echo and

reverberate around the world, we did work around the clock,

planning strategy and creating an atmosphere that gave

strength, courage, faith and hope to people of all races,

creeds, colors and religions around the world. And it all

started on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, with Rosa Parks on

December 1, 1955.

For her courage, for her role in changing Alabama, the South, the Nation, and the world for the better, our Nation owes a great debt of thanks to Rosa Parks. Placing her body in our Capitol's Rotunda, lying in honor, the first woman who has ever been so honored, is a fitting recognition of her towering achievement.

And, as I conclude, I think it is important to note the recent death of another Alabamian who played a key role in the early civil rights movement in America--Vivian Malone--who crossed the school house door into the University of Alabama.

We must also celebrate that very special event that occurred two weekends ago when another native Alabamian, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, returned to Alabama, visited her family's church and unveiled the statue of the four little girls, one of whom she knew and played with, who were killed in a bomb attack at the 16th Street Baptist Church. It was also good, earlier today, to stand and discuss Rosa Parks' life with Alabama native and U.S. Congressman John Lewis, who, inspired by Rosa Parks, began a lifetime of leadership in the civil rights movement culminating in his election to Congress. Alabama has the highest number of African-American elected officials of any State in the country. We are proud of that. Progress has certainly been made but we must work harder to ease divisions and tensions and promote progress. Let us so pledge on this historic day. Let us allow the steadfastness and peacefulness of Rosa Parks' life, which started the civil rights movement on the basis of faith and morality, not violence, to be our guide in this century as we seek to further the gains she championed.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Joel R. Stubblefield, president and chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. For over 22 years, Joel made immeasurable contributions to education in Arkansas, serving the students and citizens of Fort Smith with passion and dedication.

Following his studies at Ouachita Baptist University and Syracuse University and his military training at the Army Command and General Staff College, Joel dedicated his life to improving education opportunities for others. He strengthened programs and increased faculty at UA Fort Smith and established the Western Arkansas Technical Center for high school students who sought to take college courses to get ahead.

With his vision and leadership, Joel elevated UA Fort Smith from a 2- year to a 4-year institution. He increased enrollment by more than 100 percent, while simultaneously improving the quality of the curriculum dramatically. As president and chancellor, Joel raised nearly $60 million in private donations for new buildings, equipment, and scholarships. Yet as willing as Joel was to raise money for the school, he was just as eager to donate his own funds. Joel was known to use personal resources to pay students' tuition and he refused a salary increase for 5 years because he was unable to raise faculty salaries. Joel once even bought a bicycle for a student who did not have transportation.

Earlier this summer, Joel shared with me his latest goals for higher education in northwest Arkansas. He loved the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and dedicated himself fully to its continued improvement. We can honor Joel's memory by applying the same commitment and generosity toward improving educational opportunities for Arkansas students.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Reed-Collins LIHEAP amendment. I want to speak to all of my colleagues, but mostly I want to address my comments to my colleagues from the South and the West. I thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Susan Collins for their cosponsorship of amendment No. 2194, bringing forward the issue of LIHEAP funding. We all know that LIHEAP funding has decreased in real dollars for over a decade now. Senators Reed and Collins have shown true leadership in offering their amendment. Hopefully, we will vote on it today. They have shown national leadership with what they are trying to accomplish.

In the face of rising energy prices, the poorest among us have been hit the hardest. They are paying about $3 at the pump right now. We have had a record hot summer in many parts of the country. Their utility bills have been going up and up. Low-income families need our help. I believe we can do better. We can think of ways to help our low- income constituents and low-income Americans. The Reed-Collins amendment can do that. It adds $3.1 billion to the core LIHEAP program. This is what Southern and Western Senators need to understand. I don't want any of my colleagues to be surprised when the amendment comes to the floor for a vote today. I hope that all their staff who are listening will please advise their bosses accordingly. This money will go to LIHEAP's core program.

When I say ``core program,'' that means it will not be designated as emergency funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. Why is that significant? It is significant for this basic reason. By giving the money to the core program instead of HHS, the amendment helps put low-income heating applicants in Southern and Western States on better footing.

Let me explain. In the past, Health and Human Services has had discretion. When we put emergency funding there, they have had discretion on how they spend it. Their track record has been very clear. They seem to prioritize areas of the country that are heated with home heating oil. What we are trying to do is put the money into the core program, which means it goes into the formula that has been long established in Federal law, which means in States all across America--States such as Arkansas in the South and the West--people who are going to be facing record high prices for natural gas this winter will receive some relief.

Unfortunately, when we get emergency funding, many of the States are not helped as much as the formula would help them. I am not disputing at all that the Northeast and the Midwest face very harsh winters, more so than the South and some parts of the West. But we have low-income citizens in our States, too, who need to heat their homes this winter. I believe it is a more effective and better way to put money into the core LIHEAP program, sending it through the formula, rather than leaving it to the discretion of HHS.

I am happy to join Senators Reed and Collins in this effort. It is a bipartisan effort. I want my colleagues to understand that. In my view, it is better than past proposals. It is better because it is more equitable in its distribution. It is bipartisan. Southern and Western Senators have a chance to help the people in their States with this vote. It will help people all across America. This amendment also recognizes the high cost of natural gas this winter. All the experts who have looked at this say natural gas is going to be at a record high price for consumers this winter. It acknowledges the high cost of other forms of energy to heat our homes.

I don't want my colleagues to be surprised when this comes to the floor for a vote at some point this afternoon or tonight. I would hate for any Senator to vote against this and then later learn that this is their best opportunity to help their constituents during this very cold and expensive winter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today to express my displeasure with the Homeland Security appropriations conference report. More specifically, the conferees' neglect of formula based funding for State's first responders could produce dire results for small rural States such as Arkansas.

The conferees' decision to cut this funding, by more than half, will make it harder for smaller States to prevent, and more importantly, respond to emergency situations either manmade or natural. The events of the last 2 months alone go to show that first responders need to be prepared regardless of where they are located geographically.

The conferees' decision to cut first responder funding is even more frustrating seeing that the U.S. Senate a few months ago overwhelmingly passed a Homeland Security appropriations bill that went to great lengths to maintain a minimum base of first responder funding for all States. The formula which was created by Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman was fair and would have provided stability to our Homeland Security appropriations process. I commend these Senators for their hard work and regret that their formula was ignored by conferees.

The conferees' actions will not only do great disservice to small States' first responders this year, but they have guaranteed that we will yet again spend precious time next year working out a funding formula to allocate Homeland Security grant money. There are many other issues that we must tackle but an inability to reach an understanding on this important issue will keep us stuck in the mud and that, Mr. President, is a disservice to all States.

Mr. President, nearly half a century ago, Arkansas experienced one of its darkest moments. As nine African-American students fought to integrate Central High School, they were accosted by students, threatened by parents and forsaken by local leaders. It took an intervention by President Dwight Eisenhower to bring desegregation to this public school.

But in the 48 years since this event my State has seen brighter days, most recently on August 30, 2005, when I was proud to be present for the unveiling of ``Testament,'' a sculpture of the Little Rock Nine depicting the nine brave students on their journey to claim an equal education.

``Testament'' is a tribute by John Deering, one of Little Rock's own, to those students and the courage they demonstrated that day. The life- sized sculpture depicts the nine students as they were in 1957: Equally brave, scared, determined. It is the largest bronze statue in Arkansas and the first

monument honoring the civil rights movement on the grounds of a Southern State capitol. During the 40th anniversary of the desegregation, John came up with the idea for the sculpture. With approval from the Little Rock Nine Foundation, John created the work with his wife Kathy and studio partner Steve Scallion. The sculpture has been 7 years in the making and now stands proudly in Little Rock.

I would like to recognize John for this sculpture and his contributions to journalism and the arts. As the editorial cartoonist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, John has earned numerous local and national accolades. He has been recognized by the Arkansas Press Association with the Best Editorial Cartoonist Award seven times in his career and in 1996 he won the illustrious Berryman Award from the National Press Foundation. His editorial cartoons are nationally syndicated, as is his comic strip ``Strange Brew,'' allowing readers throughout the country to share in his humor.

But make no mistake, John is serious about his cartoons, and the artistry is as important to him as the jokes. His dedication to artistry has translated to other mediums, including painting and sculpture. John has works displayed throughout the country. ``Testament'' is not the first monument he has sculpted for Arkansas. In 1987, John created a life-size sculpture of an American soldier for the Arkansas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which I consider both poignant and powerful.

When the ``Testament'' sculpture was unveiled, the Little Rock Nine once again stood together in solidarity. An emotional moment for those brave men and women, it was also a moving event for John as 7 years of private work was finally put on public display. As this sculpture stands on Arkansas' capitol grounds, it serves as a testament to the Little Rock Nine, as well as Arkansas' past and future. I applaud John for his valuable artistic contribution to Arkansas and the nation and I hope that this statue will serve as a lasting reminder of the difficulties and triumphs of the civil rights movement for generations to come.

Mr. President, today, I pay tribute to the life and legacy of John H. Johnson. John was a pioneer whose monumental works in publishing and generous acts of philanthropy have had profound influence on the lives of millions, both inside and outside Arkansas.

John's life story is one we can all learn from and admire. Raising himself up from poverty to the top of the business world, he is proof that hard work and determination can create success. Born the grandson of slaves in a one-room house in Arkansas City in 1918, John went on to become the first African American to be named to Forbes' list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.

The founder, publisher and chairman of Johnson Publishing company-- the largest African-American owned publishing company in the world-- John's magazines, Ebony and Jet, are the number one African-American magazine and newsweekly respectively. Ebony currently has a circulation of 1.7 million and a monthly readership of over 11 million, while Jet has a readership of over 8 million weekly, and both publications continue to lead the way in African-American journalism. Linda Johnson Rice, John's daughter, currently serves as President and CEO of her father's company and I wish her the best in building on her father's success.

Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996--the highest honor this Nation bestows on civilians--John's life was full of accomplishments and accolades. John was recognized with the Magazine Publisher's Association publisher of the year award, the Black Journalists' Lifetime Achievement Award and the Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones Entrepreneurial Excellence Award. He has been inducted into the Advertising Hall of Fame, the National Business Hall of Fame and, in 2001, he became the first African American inducted into the Arkansas Business Hall of Fame. During his life, John was also appointed to various posts by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and served on the boards of corporations ranging from Dillard Department Stores to the Chrysler Corporation to Twentieth Century Fox Film.

But John's influence extends beyond the business world. He helped change race relations in this country, both with his publications and activism. In 1955, John made history when he published the unedited photographs of the mutilated body of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old murder victim who was viciously beaten, shot and then drowned in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The pictures, intended to show the reality of the Jim Crow South, helped spark the Civil Rights Movement.

As far as John went in life, he was not one to forget his roots. Raised in poverty in Arkansas by his mother, John has spent much of life giving back to his community and state. John's dedication to education and improving the lives of children has been one of his greatest passions and the results of his work will be felt in Arkansas for decades to come. In May, Arkansas City and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff dedicated the John H. Johnson Cultural and Educational Museum. The museum contains memorabilia, printed materials and videos about John's life, which will serve as an inspiration to our children as they strive to succeed. There are also plans in the works for the John H. Johnson Delta Cultural and Entrepreneurial Learning Center in Arkansas City, as well as a related academic complex in Pine Bluff. These facilities will undoubtedly be an asset to the university and provide valuable education opportunities for the students of Arkansas.

John H. Johnson's legacy will live on and continue to influence the State of Arkansas, and the Nation, for many years. Through his publications, activism and generosity, John has left an indelible mark on society. He was a trailblazer and his contributions to our Nation are immeasurable. I join all of Arkansas in saluting the memory of John H. Johnson.

Mr. President, one of the things that was surprising to my constituents in Arkansas is that I would actually come to Washington, DC, and join a gang. They sometimes wonder what we do up here and why we do it. I am very proud to be part of this gang, with my 13 colleagues who stood tall and exercised some of the best traditions and best judgment that Senators can. One of the lessons we learned through the Gang of 14 process and trying to take the nuclear option off the table--and also trying to get some up-or-down votes on some more nominees--is that good things happen when Senators talk to each other.

I have learned since I have been in Washington that we spend a lot of time talking about each other and not enough time talking to each other. I hope this serves as an object lesson. It shows we can work together in this political environment. The truth is, we talk about how bad things are, and sometimes they do get bad. But basically, we are all sent here by our States. Each State gets two Senators. Even the two Senators from the same State don't always agree. We don't have to agree. But certainly all 100 of us should, as the Book of Isaiah says, reason together. We should come together and put the country first and put others' interests ahead of our own. We should try to continue to work together and build on not just a bipartisan approach but in many ways a nonpartisan approach where we look at

the challenges facing our country and try to approach those as best we possibly can.

I know a lot of people around the country and in this Chamber and this city are focused on the next nomination. We haven't even had a vote on John Roberts. Nonetheless, a lot of people are concerned about the next nomination. I understand that. In some ways, and rightfully so, we should be focused on that. My colleagues have touched on it already. But part of the language Senator Warner and Senator Byrd crafted during this agreement--we all helped in different ways on this language and had our thoughts incorporated in the language, but Senator Byrd and Senator Warner took the lead on the language--is the advice and consent portion of the agreement. Basically all we do is encourage the President to take the Constitution literally. When the Constitution says that it shall be with the advice and consent of the Senate, we take that literally. We hope the President will seek our advice.

Supposedly either the President or the White House reached out to about 70 of us when we received the John Roberts nomination. That works, and that is very positive. I hope we see that again.

Some of my constituents in Arkansas have asked me: Don't you have some anxiety about John Roberts? Gosh, he used to work for the Reagan administration. There are things in his background that various people don't agree with.

My response is: Certainly, I have anxiety about John Roberts. I have anxiety about any nominee that any President will nominate to the Supreme Court. It is a lifetime appointment. There is no question about the influence and the impact that one Supreme Court Justice can have on the American system of justice and on American society. I have anxiety about anybody. I certainly have some about John Roberts. But nonetheless, he has the right stuff to be on the Court.

I am proud of the courage my colleagues showed in the time when it mattered and we came together and worked it out, the Gang of 14.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to bring the nomination of John Roberts to the full Senate for its consideration. I am quite sure that by October 3, 2005, Mr. Roberts will be sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

Today is a very important day for the Senate. I say this because several months ago this body was mired in a partisan judicial battle that many thought would end in a nuclear winter. Very few people, including a majority of the American public, thought that we would weather the storm and find common ground. But instead of nuclear winter, this body was able to rise above the partisan bickering that has plagued us for some time, and we were able to come to an agreement, an understanding that has allowed the judicial process to move forward.

While I do not intend to review that entire agreement, there is one part that is worth noting.

It 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

very well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately

accompanies the advice and consent process in this Senate.

I think that in the case of John Roberts, the clause I read has been heeded by this administration, and I applaud President Bush for following in the tradition of past Presidents who have sought meaningful consultation with the Senate.

For the first time in my short tenure as a Senator, I felt as though this administration put forth an effort to gauge where the Senate was on a nomination and acted accordingly.

I believe the White House, when working together with the Senate as a coequal branch of Government, will always be able to find a consensus nominee who will faithfully uphold the Constitution and represent the best of our justice system.

I think in the case of John Roberts, that was accomplished. This is one of several reasons I have decided to vote to confirm John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

When President Bush nominated Mr. Roberts, I said then that I felt very strongly the Senate must fulfill its constitutional duty to learn as much about John Roberts' judicial record as possible, including his work over the past 2 years since he has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our liberties and freedom, and appointments for these gatekeepers are rare and pivotal. A Supreme Court Justice deserves a high threshold of review, and I think John Roberts was put to the test.

I applaud the Judiciary Committee for all of their hard work over the past few months and for the quality of last week's hearings. The quality of the questions and the ensuing debate were a testament to the important work the committee does and a testament to the valued leadership of Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Patrick Leahy.

I had an opportunity to meet personally with John Roberts. He is someone with whom you can sit down and talk for hours about the law. He is genial and easy to get along with. He is a family man. While these are all wonderful qualities, it is not why I am voting for him.

I am voting for Mr. Roberts because he meets the criteria I have set out for judicial nominations, criteria I have used in assessing all judicial nominations that have come before this body.

When looking at the nomination of Mr. Roberts, I first asked: Does John Roberts have the qualifications or credentials to be a judge?

I think the answer to this question is obvious to anyone, and no one in this body will dispute it. Judge Roberts brings with him excellent credentials. He is a brilliant lawyer, and I was very impressed with his breadth of knowledge of the law. He has also, on multiple occasions, demonstrated a genuine understanding of the law.

I was also very impressed with his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. While some of my colleagues and I would have liked for Mr. Roberts to further explain some of his answers and positions, no one can dispute he has the ability to take this most prestigious post.

My second criteria: Will Mr. Roberts be of the right judicial temperament? As a lawyer who has argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court 39 times, I believe Mr. Roberts has a high level of respect for the law, its institutions, and its traditions.

I am convinced, after spending time with Mr. Roberts, that he will conduct himself with the dignity befitting of a Supreme Court Justice and that he will lead the Federal judiciary with honor and integrity.

My third criteria: Will John Roberts be fair and impartial and not an activist? I want to believe the answer is yes.

I do not think it is any secret there are Members of this body, including myself, who were and still are in disagreement with some of President Reagan's domestic policies, especially pertaining to civil rights.

I, of course, was not in the Senate during the 1980s, and being a few years younger than Mr. Roberts, I was still in school when he was starting his legal career. I do not agree with many of the opinions Mr. Roberts expressed in his memos while serving in the Office of the U.S. Attorney General, but I can say that as a lawyer I have taken positions that were not my own but were my client's.

I can also say that time has a way of changing a man. It is my hope that after 20 years of gaining life experience, John Roberts has a better understanding and appreciation of how important civil rights protections are to the survival of this country and that he has moved away from some of his earlier writings.

There will be people in my home State of Arkansas who are going to be very pleased that I am voting for Mr. Roberts. I will also face constituents who will be disappointed. I am sure those constituents will ask: Senator Pryor, how can you be sure? How can you be sure, without broader explanations from Mr. Roberts, or without more documents, that he will vote this way or that way on an issue?

My answer to that is twofold. First, I do not believe it is my duty as a Senator to confirm only judges I believe are going to vote the way I want them to 100 percent of the time. My duty as a Senator is to use my discretion to put the best jurist possible on the bench. I believe we have achieved that threshold with John Roberts.

Just as importantly, I would answer those critical of my decision to support Judge Roberts by saying, you can never be 100 percent sure.

I have chosen, based upon the evidence I have, based on my talks with John Roberts, based on his testimony, to put my faith in Judge Roberts.

I have chosen to believe him when he says he is not an ideologue. I have chosen to believe he will uphold the Constitution above all else and that he will not let politics or personal agenda get in the way of his job.

I am certain in the years that follow there will be times I laud Justice Roberts' opinions, and there will be times I will be disappointed in his rulings. But I am confident I will never be disappointed in his integrity, his temperament, or his ability to conduct himself as a man of the Court, not as a man of politics. Therefore, I once again state my intention to vote for Judge Roberts when his nomination comes to the floor.

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

I call for the regular order of business with respect to Pryor amendment No. 1703.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to price gouging on gasoline. I thank many of my colleagues who have cosponsored and helped in this process: Senators Mikulski, Salazar, Obama, Stabenow, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Corzine, Bingaman, Dorgan, Durbin, Inouye, Feingold, Dodd, Kerry, and there may be one or two others who have wanted their names added in the last few moments. I thank my cosponsors for all the work they have done.

This started with me traveling the State of Arkansas, as many Members have traveled their home States, during the August recess, and everywhere I went people talked about high gas prices. This is putting a strain on the economy, putting a strain on families, hurting not only every section of the country but also every sector of the economy.

It is very difficult for the people in my State, and I am sure it is hard for people in other States, to pay record high prices at the gas pump, only to open the business pages and see the oil companies are making record profits.

A bad situation has become worse in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Americans have a right to know why gas prices are so high. They have a right to know if there is price gouging occurring. This amendment does not say there is. This amendment requires the FTC to do an immediate investigation into high gas prices to make comparisons and determinations and make sure there is no price gouging occurring.

I don't want to say he agrees completely with this amendment, but certainly President Bush has said on ABC, on ``Good Morning America'':

I think it ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking

the law during an emergency such as this, whether it be

looting or price gouging at the gasoline pump or taking

advantage of charitable giving or insurance fraud.

That is from President Bush. Certainly, the sentiment is there that if there is gouging going on, we need to know about it. This requires the FTC to do an immediate investigation and come back and report to Congress with their findings within 30 days.

I give a special thank you to Senator Domenici. We worked very closely with him and his staff, we worked very closely with Senator Shelby and his staff, and Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, and Ben Nelson. Everyone played a role. I give a very special thank you to our friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. She has done yeoman's work on this amendment. She and her staff--I need to give credit to all the staff. We reached a bipartisan agreement on this

a few moments ago. I thank all my colleagues and certainly I look forward to hearing from Senator Mikulski on this very important issue on which she has worked so hard.