Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I commend an outstanding Arkansan on her birthday for her truly amazing gifts to the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Pat Seamans Walker, a Springdale resident, has always been a leader in Arkansas philanthropy by providing donations for many worthwhile causes, especially healthcare, education and human service organizations. Mrs. Walker and her late husband Willard founded the Willard and Pat Walker Charitable Foundation in 1986. Since that time, their generosity has touched the lives of thousands of Arkansans. Mrs. Walker is a member of the Foundation Board for the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, and an active member of First Christian Church of Springdale. She also participates in the oversight of the Walker Charitable Foundation. Pat Walker has received many awards in recognition of her philanthropy, including the 2002 American Heart Association Tiffany Award, the Distinguished Services Award from the Razorback Foundation, the prestigious Arkansas Children's Award, and the University of Arkansas Medical School Distinguished Services Award. She has been recognized as one of the Most Distinguished Women in Arkansas and was named to the Top 100 Women in Arkansas list by Arkansas Business in 1999. The Willard and Pat Walker Charitable Foundation has made countless donations over the years, including millions to educational institutions in Arkansas, millions to healthcare research and community health centers in Arkansas, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars to build libraries in Arkansas. I would like to personally thank Mrs. Walker and the members of the Walker family for their unwavering support of the State of Arkansas. It is an honor to stand here before you today and wish such a remarkable person a happy birthday.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his kind remarks. Of course, everybody in the Senate knows what a friend to the men and women in uniform Senator Chambliss has been since he has been in the Senate. I am sure that also relates back to his House days. He has really been a fabulous leader for our soldiers, and it is an honor for me to ask him to join me in the Wounded Warrior Act. Last Friday, I had the chance to go to Walter Reed and see three Arkansans who were injured in various ways in Iraq. It is always a sobering experience to go see our soldiers whom we are so proud of. We are proud of the people who put on the uniform and put their lives in jeopardy for the principles of this country. And we have other facilities, not just Walter Reed. I know that is the one that gets the most publicity nationally. Obviously, every State or region has a lot of facilities. In Little Rock, there is the John McClellan Veterans Hospital, which I visited not too long ago, and we have at least a couple of other very good facilities in our State. They offer, generally speaking, great care. We know that sometimes people fall through the cracks, but we are very proud of our VA presence in the State of Arkansas. I must say that in my office in Little Rock--and the one here, for that matter--we have people on staff who deal and work with soldiers virtually on a daily basis--people who are in the VA system who, for some reason, have run into some bureaucratic roadblock or a file gets lost or a record gets lost or some box doesn't get checked or whatever the case may be. We, more or less, like many colleagues here, have full-time staff who do that on virtually a full-time basis. We are honored to help the citizens of our State in any way we can, but we also would like to say that we can help the VA system run better and provide better health care with less bureaucracy. Arkansas has had about 40 soldiers killed in Iraq. It has been a very hard circumstance for our State to go through. It impacts every community in the State and almost every family in the State. In addition to those 40, which obviously are going to get more notice and publicity and discussion, as they should, there are 369 Arkansans who have been injured in Iraq. Those numbers track fairly well what the national numbers are. Across this Nation, there have been 11,215 soldiers, at last count, who have been wounded in Iraq so severely that they have not been able to return to duty. So it is critical that we have legislation such as the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. It will require case managers for outpatients to handle no more than 17 cases. They will have to review each case weekly. It creates a system of patient advocates within our health care system. It increases training for health care professionals, medical case managers, and patient advocates, with an emphasis on identifying and treating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. It establishes a toll-free hotline for patients and families to report problems with medical facilities or patient care. It creates an independent advocate to counsel servicemembers appearing before medical evaluation boards. We think all of those are healthy, positive, and constructive reforms. We think the time has come for this to happen. Senator Chambliss, a few moments ago, mentioned that the House passed this legislation 426 to 0. They did that late last month. It is the Senate's turn to weigh in and be on record for helping our wounded warriors. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act allows them to focus on healing and not be frustrated by redtape. It improves the access and quality of care our veterans receive. It puts an advocate on their side. We know that with any large organization, there will be some bureaucracy and files will be lost and information gets misplaced. We understand that. But, hopefully, what this will do is streamline the process and make the system work a lot better for those who have been willing to make the sacrifice for this country. Mr. President, I think this is important legislation because it does good things, but it is also symbolic legislation. It shows our members of the military that we are willing--their Government and the people of this country--to stand behind them during and after their Active-Duty service. I ask that my colleagues give this legislation their strong consideration. The House passed it overwhelmingly. I hope we will have broad-based, bipartisan support in this body. It is an honor for me to offer it with my lead cosponsor, Senator Chambliss of Georgia. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his kind remarks. Of course, everybody in the Senate knows what a friend to the men and women in uniform Senator Chambliss has been since he has been in the Senate. I am sure that also relates back to his House days. He has really been a fabulous leader for our soldiers, and it is an honor for me to ask him to join me in the Wounded Warrior Act. Last Friday, I had the chance to go to Walter Reed and see three Arkansans who were injured in various ways in Iraq. It is always a sobering experience to go see our soldiers whom we are so proud of. We are proud of the people who put on the uniform and put their lives in jeopardy for the principles of this country. And we have other facilities, not just Walter Reed. I know that is the one that gets the most publicity nationally. Obviously, every State or region has a lot of facilities. In Little Rock, there is the John McClellan Veterans Hospital, which I visited not too long ago, and we have at least a couple of other very good facilities in our State. They offer, generally speaking, great care. We know that sometimes people fall through the cracks, but we are very proud of our VA presence in the State of Arkansas. I must say that in my office in Little Rock--and the one here, for that matter--we have people on staff who deal and work with soldiers virtually on a daily basis--people who are in the VA system who, for some reason, have run into some bureaucratic roadblock or a file gets lost or a record gets lost or some box doesn't get checked or whatever the case may be. We, more or less, like many colleagues here, have full-time staff who do that on virtually a full-time basis. We are honored to help the citizens of our State in any way we can, but we also would like to say that we can help the VA system run better and provide better health care with less bureaucracy. Arkansas has had about 40 soldiers killed in Iraq. It has been a very hard circumstance for our State to go through. It impacts every community in the State and almost every family in the State. In addition to those 40, which obviously are going to get more notice and publicity and discussion, as they should, there are 369 Arkansans who have been injured in Iraq. Those numbers track fairly well what the national numbers are. Across this Nation, there have been 11,215 soldiers, at last count, who have been wounded in Iraq so severely that they have not been able to return to duty. So it is critical that we have legislation such as the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. It will require case managers for outpatients to handle no more than 17 cases. They will have to review each case weekly. It creates a system of patient advocates within our health care system. It increases training for health care professionals, medical case managers, and patient advocates, with an emphasis on identifying and treating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. It establishes a toll-free hotline for patients and families to report problems with medical facilities or patient care. It creates an independent advocate to counsel servicemembers appearing before medical evaluation boards. We think all of those are healthy, positive, and constructive reforms. We think the time has come for this to happen. Senator Chambliss, a few moments ago, mentioned that the House passed this legislation 426 to 0. They did that late last month. It is the Senate's turn to weigh in and be on record for helping our wounded warriors. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act allows them to focus on healing and not be frustrated by redtape. It improves the access and quality of care our veterans receive. It puts an advocate on their side. We know that with any large organization, there will be some bureaucracy and files will be lost and information gets misplaced. We understand that. But, hopefully, what this will do is streamline the process and make the system work a lot better for those who have been willing to make the sacrifice for this country. Mr. President, I think this is important legislation because it does good things, but it is also symbolic legislation. It shows our members of the military that we are willing--their Government and the people of this country--to stand behind them during and after their Active-Duty service. I ask that my colleagues give this legislation their strong consideration. The House passed it overwhelmingly. I hope we will have broad-based, bipartisan support in this body. It is an honor for me to offer it with my lead cosponsor, Senator Chambliss of Georgia. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I today I honor the late Helen Robson Walton. Helen touched countless lives within her community, across Arkansas and throughout the world. Born on December 3, 1919, in Claremore, OK, Helen graduated college in 1941 with a bachelor's degree in finance from the University of Oklahoma School of Business. Two years later she married Sam Walton and they formed a lasting relationship of love, friendship and as business partners. Helen and Sam Walton opened their first retail store, a Ben Franklin ``five and dime'' in Newport, AR, in 1945. The daughter of a successful lawyer, banker and rancher, Helen had a natural instinct for good management and played an active role in the family business. She firmly believed in the concept of family partnerships and insisted that their four children--Rob, John, Jim and Alice--were partners of Walton Enterprises. At the time, they were all under the age of 10. Helen was also admired for her graceful, down-to-earth demeanor. She was active in the First Presbyterian Church in Bentonville and the first woman ever elected to vice chairwoman of the board of trustees for the Presbyterian Church, USA, Foundation. As a natural leader who recognized the importance of putting others before self, Helen devoted a large portion of her time to the Walton Family Foundation. Under her leadership, the foundation has given generously to numerous Arkansas organizations, including the University of Arkansas, the Walton Arts Center in Fayetteville and Crystal Bridges. Her commitment to education has also touched hundreds of lives in Central America. Since 1985, she personally supervised a $3.6 million scholarship program for Central American students to study at John Brown University in Siloam Springs, University of the Ozarks and Harding University in Searcy. Knowing the vast majority of these students would return home, Helen wanted to provide them with higher educational opportunities so they could later contribute to the well- being and economic development of their local communities. Her generosity of time, energy and goodwill towards others is an example we all can follow. I join Arkansans in offering my prayers and condolences for the Robson and Walton families during this difficult time.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of a man revered as the most influential man in Arkansas agriculture. Cecil E. Williams, Jr., who passed on April 12, was respected by his peers and seen as an unparalleled advocate for farmer's interests, where he tried to save not only their lives, but also their jobs and livelihood. Undoubtedly, agriculture is the backbone of rural Arkansas and rural America. Today, Arkansas agriculture provides nearly one in every five jobs in my State, and we rank in the top 10 nationally in the production of many commodities, including rice and cotton, where we rank No. 1 and No. 2 respectively. Much of Arkansas' success in agriculture can be directly attributed to Cecil Williams and his hard work. Mr. Williams worked hard during his lifetime to make Arkansas agriculture a force to be reckoned with while establishing workable, sensible, and sound farm policy. For nearly 40 years, Cecil Williams, known as the ``Dean of Farm Bills,'' served as the director of the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, ACA, where he took great pride in serving what he considered a worthwhile cause: farmers and agriculture. After receiving an agribusiness degree in 1960 from Louisiana State University, Mr. Williams began his career as a fieldworker for the National Cotton Council and gained valuable insight into the production, business, and policy angles of agriculture. After an impressive 5 years with the National Cotton Council, the Agricultural Council of Arkansas recognized his talents and heavily recruited him to join their ranks. Once at the council, he quickly ascended to a leadership role with the organization and went on to fight for farm policy that made sense for Arkansas, improve checkoff programs for crops, and provide better insurance programs. One of Williams' most storied accomplishments was getting the average farmer involved in the leadership and policy development process, most notably by developing the National Cotton Council's Producer Steering Committee. To this day, the Steering Committee continues to ensure producers have an active voice on policy issues. He never underestimated the knowledge and influence carried by the producer. Farmers all over Arkansas appreciated that and never forgot the respect he gave their opinions. Cecil Williams took each event in stride and persevered with leadership and optimism. His ability to develop and foster leadership among the producer ranks was and still is an impressive feat. His relentless defense of agriculture, and the years he spent cultivating active and knowledgeable producers in Arkansas will be long remembered by those whose lives he touched through his tireless devotion. I am always proud to see Arkansas farmers when they make their way to Washington or when I am traveling the state. These are, without a doubt in my mind, the best farmers in America thanks to the leadership of people like Cecil Williams. During his lifetime, Williams always led by example and stayed true to his cause; rarely will you find such a noble and grounded leader. This was a man who could see the big picture and still thoroughly understand the components needed on the ground. He believed firmly in what he represented and remained active in production agriculture and the legislative arena up until his last days. Arkansas agriculture has suffered a great loss with the passing of Cecil Williams, but we will continue to remember this great man and benefit from his foresight and leadership. During his lifetime, Cecil Williams saw the passage of numerous farm bills and agricultural laws. From his active role in production agriculture and agricultural policy, he was also able to see the consequences of both good and bad farm policy. As Congress works on drafting the 2007 farm bill, let us not forget the legacy Cecil Williams left behind and take heed from the wisdom of his decades of experience. I pay my tribute to this legend of Arkansas agriculture and express my greatest condolences to his family. He will be missed.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I honor and congratulate Cody Carithers who is a senior at Highland High School in Arkansas and will graduate on May 18, 2007. Cody has accomplished an amazing feat--he has never missed a day of school. Since kindergarten at Cherokee Elementary School in Highland until now, never missed a day. This accomplishment has not been easy. Cody was diagnosed with a brain tumor near his optic nerve a little over 2 years ago. This caused frequent headaches and required many trips to Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock. Cody was adamant about maintaining his perfect attendance, and the hospital worked with him to schedule his appointments on school holidays or in the evening so he wouldn't miss a day of school. What a determined young man. Cody is involved in a number of school activities, clubs and organizations. He is an active member of Future Farmers of America and is president of the Rebels Against Drugs Program at Highland High School. He has also participated in sports. During the summer, Cody volunteered at the Sharp County Library. He has been employed for the past 2 years at Ivey's Automotive Center in Highland. Cody's plans after graduation are to attend Black River Technical College and pursue a degree in aviation maintenance or automotive technology. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Cody Carithers for his determination, drive and incredible school attendance record. He exemplifies Highland High School's motto, ``A tradition of excellence.''

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of Arkansas native George Howard, Jr., who died Saturday, April 21, 2007 at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in Pine Bluff, AR. Howard, a remarkable lawyer and civil-rights leader, was Arkansas's first black Federal judge. I am pleased to honor his legacy today by introducing legislation to designate the Pine Bluff Federal building and courthouse the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Judge Howard will be remembered for a number of remarkable professional accomplishments. He was named by President Carter to a lifetime appointment as U.S. District Court Judge for Arkansas's Eastern and Western districts in 1980. Prior to taking office as a Federal judge, Mr. Howard worked as an attorney in private practice and served as President of the State Council of Branches of the NAACP. He graduated from law school at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1954. Though not the first black student to graduate from the U of A law school, he was one of the earliest and was the first black student to live in campus housing. Judge Howard also served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. His hard work, dedication to his country and profession, and historic contribution to the State of Arkansas should be celebrated and remembered. For this reason, I urge the Senate to adopt this legislation honoring Judge George Howard, Jr.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of Arkansas native George Howard, Jr., who died Saturday, April 21, 2007 at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in Pine Bluff, AR. Howard, a remarkable lawyer and civil-rights leader, was Arkansas's first black Federal judge. I am pleased to honor his legacy today by introducing legislation to designate the Pine Bluff Federal building and courthouse the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Judge Howard will be remembered for a number of remarkable professional accomplishments. He was named by President Carter to a lifetime appointment as U.S. District Court Judge for Arkansas's Eastern and Western districts in 1980. Prior to taking office as a Federal judge, Mr. Howard worked as an attorney in private practice and served as President of the State Council of Branches of the NAACP. He graduated from law school at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1954. Though not the first black student to graduate from the U of A law school, he was one of the earliest and was the first black student to live in campus housing. Judge Howard also served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. His hard work, dedication to his country and profession, and historic contribution to the State of Arkansas should be celebrated and remembered. For this reason, I urge the Senate to adopt this legislation honoring Judge George Howard, Jr.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that today I honor Dierks, AR, which will soon be celebrating its 100th anniversary. Dierks is located in Howard County which lies in the southwestern part of my State. It was named after a German family that immigrated to the United States in the mid-1800s. The family established a major sawmill known as Hardscrabble, and when the community was incorporated in 1907, it changed its name to Dierks. The Weyerhaeuser Company purchased most of the Dierks' family holdings in 1969. Weyerhaeuser employs some 600 people in Howard County and is one of the county's largest employers. Dierks is also one of many of Arkansas's fine recreation destinations. Visitors take advantage of Dierks Lake which offers boating, fishing, waterskiing, camping, and sightseeing. Among fishermen, the lake is best known for its large-mouth bass and crappie. Catfish and bream can also be caught in abundance. The beautiful surroundings make it among one of the most scenic spots in the State. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Dierks on its 100th anniversary and in wishing its 1,300 citizens a wonderful day of celebration.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 601, and I encourage my colleagues to look at it and vote for it. The statistics are that by the year 2020 this country will be tens of thousands--tens of thousands--short on doctors providing the medical care we need around this country. What this amendment does is it creates a reserve fund that would provide additional training for physicians and help to attract more physicians in States that face a shortage of physicians for training. It does not impose a prescriptive solution but creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund the Finance Committee can use to find the best way to help ensure citizens and States will have the number of physicians they need over the long term. I thank Senator Bill Nelson for cosponsoring the amendment, and also the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee for supporting this amendment. This goes back to the mid 1990s, where there were some caps imposed. This doesn't change that, but it allows the Finance Committee the room during this budget cycle to try to help resolve that.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I believe I am limited to 1 minute; is that correct?

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, I offer amendment No. 601.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank the Senator. That is very gracious and I appreciate it very much. I wanted to come to the floor and say a few words. I will try to keep my remarks to 90 seconds or 2 minutes, because I know some other Senators wish to say a word. First, let me thank my colleagues for working on a package of legislation that includes the TRAC Act, making the TRAC Act permanent, the tax relief for our soldiers in combat. We know we spotted this 3 years ago where for some soldiers in combat, when they take their combat pay, they lose the ability to get the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit. I have had soldiers all around my State and other places tell me they appreciate the tax relief, and the last thing they need to be worried about is their taxes and getting gypped out of some tax relief. So this makes it permanent. Thank you very much. Secondly, I have included in this package one of these amendments we are going to vote on which is the daycare tax credit. In 2004, there were 6.3 million taxpayers who used the child independent tax care credit to cover daycare, afterschool care, summer day camp, elder care facilities, and this is a tax that helps working families, middle-class families, folks who are the bread and butter of our Nation and our economy. Also, I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for their great leadership on this budget. I know it has been very hard. I know we are getting to the time to vote. I want to thank them publicly for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I come to the floor to voice my strong support of S. 214, Preserving U.S. Attorneys Independence Act. We all know the story by now. In the dead of night, the Justice Department slipped into the PATRIOT Act, which was under consideration in the House--it was in the conference, apparently, when this happened. They slipped in a provision to allow itself carte blanche authority to strategically handpick judges and bypass Senate confirmation, which I believe was done to carry out a political scheme to fire and replace U.S. attorneys. I don't say this lightly. We have seen the e-mails now. Most of my colleagues in the Senate and, in fact, most people around the country have seen all or some or bits and pieces of these e-mails. They are damning. The Department of Justice has taken deliberate steps to mislead Senators and abuse its misbegotten authority. Put quite simply, we can't trust this administration to use its authority in a fair and constructive manner. They have proven that to us. It is time we restore justice at the Justice Department. We can begin that process with two steps: First, we can move this legislation to which I referred a moment ago very swiftly and restore the confirmation process that our Founding Fathers envisioned. Allowing interim U.S. attorneys to serve for a limited 120 days is a reasonable solution and will put an end to the slippery tactics of this administration and, might I say, future administrations. By the way, I think one of the reasons we all should support this legislation is not because this administration--I think they have abused the law they have--but there is always that tendency for the President to try to bully something through the Senate. The easiest way of all is to get around the Senate completely and circumvent the Senate's authority which, by the language of the PATRIOT Act, as I mentioned, was slipped in. I think most Senators inadvertently allowed that to happen. The second of these two steps I refer to is--I said this on the Senate floor the other day, and I still believe it--the Attorney General should resign. In an e-mail dated August 18, 2006, to the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, it says that we have a ``Senator problem'' in Arkansas. Well, guess who the Senator problem is. You are looking at him. I was by that time making calls, checking around. I had heard these rumors that the Justice Department was going to fire Bud Cummins and was going to replace him with Tim Griffin, and we will get to that specific case in a moment. But the bottom line is that--I know I was the problem, but the bottom line is that today the Attorney General, Attorney General Gonzales, has a bigger problem than the junior Senator from Arkansas. He has a credibility problem. He has a trust problem. He has a growing national scandal problem. I think it is best for the Justice Department, for the administration, probably for all the U.S. attorneys and all the things that Justice does all around the country and, quite frankly, it is probably best for him as a person to go ahead and step down and move on. The Attorney General is different from any other Cabinet-level officer. He is mentioned in the Constitution. This is a role that our Founding Fathers envisioned, I believe, to be about the pursuit of justice. The Attorney General should always be held to a higher standard. We should look to him--and we understand that the Attorney General is by nature a political appointment. That is the way the Founding Fathers set it up. But we also look to him to have integrity for that department and to not play politics with the office. He is a political appointee but not to play politics with that office. One of the things that concerns me the most is some of the things I have been reading in these e-mails that have come out in the last several days between the White House and the Justice Department. Again, many of us have read these e-mails or read parts of them. They talk about the ``Bushies.'' They actually use that term in an e-mail. They talk about loyalty to the Bush administration and how that criteria is paramount in deciding whether to keep or to let go these U.S. attorneys. Well, I would say this: that is exactly the wrong standard. There is no question in my mind that is the wrong standard. Again, being a U.S. attorney should not be about being loyal to the administration or being political; it should be the exact opposite. It should be about being nonpolitical and about being loyal to the Constitution and the law of the land; to be loyal to the duty you were sworn to uphold. I think this administration has it backwards. I think U.S. attorneys on the local level have demonstrated over the last couple of centuries that they have been very good at trying to stay above politics and stay out of the political fray. Let me tell my colleagues, I have seen U.S. attorneys all over the country during my lifetime who have taken on very dicey, very difficult cases, and more often than not they do an outstanding job and are very professional in their pursuit of justice. Things have changed with this administration. From the very top, they want the U.S. attorneys out in the districts, out in the 93 districts around the country to play politics. This is not a hypothetical situation. One would think hypothetically we would want to change this law we are talking about today to make sure those U.S. attorneys would qualify, to make sure they wouldn't play politics with their office, and one would think hypothetically it could be that at some point in the future, maybe some of these U.S. attorneys might decide to go after and prosecute and investigate people who are in the other party but not prosecute and investigate and go after people in their own party. That would be absurd. Apparently, according to these e-mails, that is exactly what was happening in at least some cases. Let me speak for a moment--I know there are other Senators waiting to speak and, certainly, I want to give them plenty of time. But let me talk about the situation in Arkansas just for a few moments because it was the first one that I became aware of. In fact, it was the first one that any Senator became aware of. I mentioned to the Judiciary Committee and very briefly to Pat Leahy in the summer and in the early fall about some of the things I was hearing in Arkansas and that I had concerns because, by all accounts, from everything I understood, Bud Cummins, the then-U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas, in Little Rock, had done a good job. Everybody I talked to in the legal community--the judges, people who are familiar with what that office does--thought Bud Cummins had been very professional and thought he had done his job. They thought he had done exactly what he was supposed to do. I began hearing rumors over the summer that they were going to replace Bud Cummins with Tim Griffin. At that moment in time, I didn't know Tim Griffin. I am not sure I had ever met him. I don't think I had ever met him. I barely even knew who he was. I probably heard some people from Congressman Bozeman's office mention him, but I really had almost no knowledge or no recollection of who he was at all. That is all beside the point. I had never met him. I had been the attorney general in my State. I had been a practicing lawyer in Little Rock for a decade or more before I was attorney general, and I had never run across this guy in the legal community. It turns out nobody else had either because he really hadn't been in Arkansas but maybe about 1 year for his whole professional life; 1 out of maybe 15 years or something like that. So the bottom line is he didn't have any stature in the legal community. People didn't know who he was. They didn't know anything about him. So that was my concern. I didn't know who he was. I knew he had a very political background. The first question I would have had is, can he check that at the door? And that is something I would want to talk to him about and I think the Senate Judiciary Committee would want to talk to him about. But the bottom line is from the very beginning, what I wanted--the President can nominate whomever he wants to nominate. That is his business. I think it would be smart to check with Senators before he makes a nomination, but it is his business. He can nominate whomever he wants. From the very beginning, what I was asking for is that they nominate Tim Griffin and send him through the normal confirmation process. I think the people of the Eastern District of Arkansas are owed that. I think we owe it to them to do our best and to have the very best U.S. attorney there. He may be very qualified, but again, because he was an unknown and because he had no real presence in the Arkansas legal community, I thought certainly he was the type of guy who should go through the confirmation process. So that is really what I have been saying from the very beginning, and this bill, S. 214, does that. It restores the traditional balance. I think that is a healthy balance. I think that is a good balance. I think it is something we need to go back to immediately. Now, I mentioned Bud Cummins and Tim Griffin. Listen. In my mind this issue is much larger than those two people, and it is much larger than Democrats and Republicans. This issue is really fundamental to the Constitution; that is, should the Senate have the ability to confirm, give the advice and consent, on U.S. attorneys. I say the answer to that is, yes. I think that is something we as Senators should fight for. I think we need to do this to the best of our ability. We need to be fair. We need to move them through the process. By and large, when one looks at the history of U.S. attorneys being confirmed, we haven't had big knock-down, drag-outs over U.S. attorneys. But given the fact that U.S. attorneys go through Senate confirmation, it keeps the administration honest on whom they nominate. I think that is a very important point. Here again, with S. 214, we are trying to restore that balance that had worked so well before. One last thing. In the e-mails you see, in my view, a real abuse of power. Over and over you see e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, and among themselves, where they say they need to do this, and they need to have this appointment power, and if they don't use it, why in the world should they have it. There again, I think that approach to Government is dangerous. It is shortsighted, and it seems to me someone who would make that type of statement is more interested in the power of the office rather than doing what is right. If there is one agency in the Federal Government about doing what is right, it ought to be the Department of Justice. With all that said, I urge my colleagues to please support S. 214. It is good legislation. It restores the natural balance of what has worked so well for a long time around here. Once we can restore that natural balance, I think the people all over this country will feel better about their local U.S. attorney. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have come here today to talk about the political firings of U.S. attorneys, which I believe raises serious concerns over the administration's encroachment on the Senate's constitutional responsibilities but now I also believe raises serious concerns over the Attorney General's ability to serve. That is why I come here today to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's resignation. There has been a lot of attention focused on U.S. attorneys over the last couple of weeks, but this is an issue I have been involved with for the last 9 months. I first realized a problem existed in July of 2006. On February 6, 2007, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I won't repeat that testimony here, but I will focus on five facts today, and these are undisputed facts. First, based on the e- mails produced by the Department of Justice, this administration set out to fire or replace U.S. attorneys, some without cause and in some cases for suspicious reasons. Second, this is different from anything done in previous administrations and includes putting a provision in the PATRIOT Act to carry out their scheme. Third, it started with the White House. Fourth, it was carried out by the Attorney General. Fifth, the Attorney General crossed a line by putting politics above the pursuit of justice and has seriously damaged his stature and legacy in the process. The first of these points is proven by e-mails from the Attorney General's Office and the White House. The fifth point is evidenced by the Attorney General's statements to me, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his public statements. Immediately after the 2004 elections, the White House began a scheme to replace all U.S. attorneys. The Attorney General joined in that plan in early 2005 but recommended to limit the number of U.S. attorneys who would be replaced. During this process, the Attorney General identified U.S. attorneys to sacrifice to the White House demands. In January 2006, the Attorney General sent a memorandum to the White House detailing obstacles that must be overcome before going forward with the plan. One such obstacle was the Senate. So in March 2006 the Attorney General hatched another scheme to get around Senate confirmation. During the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the Attorney General, with the apparent purpose of replacing U.S. attorneys, had a provision slipped in during the Senate and House conference to allow the Attorney General indefinite appointment authority. After this plan came to light, the Attorney General responded by misleading the American people. For example, in press interviews he said the Clinton administration had done something similar. That is not true. In an Attorney General memorandum dated January 9, 2006, it clearly says: In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not-- And that is underlined, did not-- seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision. His own chief of staff has contradicted his public justification. Once the decision became apparent that they were going to push out U.S. attorneys--which, by the way, is the term the Attorney General's Office uses in the September 17, 2006, memo to the White House, that they are going to ``push out'' U.S. attorneys--there began a clear and precise method to obfuscate and delay the confirmation process by lying to home State Senators, including me. I know this because I have e-mails that lay out the game plan on how to get around Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas and myself. I have in my hand a plan to replace certain U.S. attorneys, dated November 15, 2006. This memo gives a five-step plan on how to do this and also how to talk about it. Step No. 1 has specific talking points. Step No. 2 says to call and to contact Republican Senators. This is an important point. Step No. 2 says the U.S. attorney--on step No. 2--should make these calls. The U.S. attorney says, on December 7: very important U.S. calls and Attorney General calls happen simultaneously. Mike Battle contact the following U.S. attorneys. So they do that, and I'm sorry, in step No. 1 they contact Jon Kyl, John Ensign, Pete Domenici. And then it says, ``the California political lead, the Michigan political lead, and the Washington political lead.'' Please notice, there are no Democrats who were contacted about this; not even a courtesy call from the White House or the Justice Department. Only calls made to Republicans. If there is not a Democratic Senator in that State it just says ``to the State's political lead.'' Clearly, this was a partisan effort on the part of Justice. I believe the Attorney General crossed a line when they chose to go the partisan route on U.S. attorneys. Now the Attorney General states that he was unaware of all the details of their plans that were hatched by his chief of staff. I do not believe this for a minute. I know that an e-mail written on December 19, 2006, on how to get around Senator Lincoln and myself is exactly what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to me in a telephone conversation. In fact, by way of background, I had called the White House and the Attorney General to ask them to please nominate a suitable nominee for U.S. attorney in Arkansas. They had canned or pushed out Bud Cummins. They were going to, or were about to, do an interim appointment for Tim Griffin. I asked them to please not do that and please send someone through the confirmation process. If it was Tim Griffin, send him through. I couldn't say I was going to vote for him, but please send him through. The December 19, 2006, memo is very enlightening. It is from Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales. It is to Christopher G. Oprison, apparently at the White House. Again, this is from the chief of staff of the Attorney General. My thoughts: 1. I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators-- And they are talking about Senator Lincoln and myself-- ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say ``no, never'' (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. This is an e-mail from the Attorney General's chief of staff to the White House. All of this should be done in ``good faith'' of course. When they put ``good faith'' in quotes, that tells me they are going in bad faith. They are not going in good faith, but they are giving the appearance of good faith in order to run out the clock. No. 2 says: Officially, Tim is the U.S. Attorney and will identify himself as such on pleadings and other official documents. I think it's fine for us to refer to him as an ``interim U.S. Attorney'' in talking points, with the understanding that by ``interim U.S. Attorney'' we mean [Attorney General] appointed, (as opposed to Presidentially-appointed and Senate confirmed) U.S. Attorney. No. 3: Overall, I think we should take the temperature way down-- our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us. Ask for them to consider him; note that he is qualified and doing a good job whenever asked . . . Here, again, they are telling him to tell us that he is doing a good job whenever asked. He hadn't been in office but 1 day when this thing was written. So, again, they are setting up a deception on the front end. . . . pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney; and otherwise hunker down. No. 4: The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. You bet your life that is what is at risk because we are going to have that vote later today or tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday or at some point, and absolutely that is what is at risk because I think the Senate should change that law and should take that provision out of the PATRIOT Act, that they snuck in in the dark hours in a conference. We intend to have DOJ legislative affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc. I could spend all day talking about this memo. But, basically, in here they say that the Attorney General is going to tell us, Senator Lincoln and me, about six or seven things, and they did every single one of them. This is the playbook. They say ask the Senators to give him a chance. Attorney General Gonzales did ask me that. Meet with him. He asked me to, and I did. Give him some time in office. He asked for that, even though usually people don't get a little test drive before they get appointed. He asked me--they wanted to delay, just run out the clock. At one point he said if I am not happy they will interview other candidates that I am interested in. They also mentioned for me to consider him and to look at him in a way that he is doing a good job. Here, again, every single thing in this memo was done. Again, this is the playbook. This is why I feel lied to. The truth is, I was lied to because I was told that the Attorney General--and he not only said it to me, he said it to the Senate Judiciary Committee and he said it to the world--the Attorney General wanted a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in every slot. That is absolutely not true in Arkansas based on this e- mail from the Justice Department. I assure you when they put ``good faith'' in quotes that means they are not proceeding in good faith. They didn't proceed in good faith with me, and that is one of the reasons I think Attorney General Gonzales should resign immediately. I do not think he has the credibility to run that department anymore. Let me tell you this. I was one of six Democratic Senators who supported Attorney General Gonzales' nomination and confirmation. I supported the PATRIOT Act. Not all Democrats did. I have worked closely with this Attorney General. I have always tried to deal with them and reach out to them and have a constructive, positive relationship. I believe that is what the people in Arkansas want me to do, and that is exactly what I have done. But on this issue, Attorney General Gonzales has broken faith with me, he has broken faith with the Senate, and he has broken faith with the people of Arkansas. When an Attorney General of this country, who I believe should be held to a higher standard--not a political standard but a high standard of integrity because he should be all about justice, not politics; he should be all about justice--when the Attorney General lies to a United States Senator, I think it is time for that Attorney General to go. Again, he not only lied to me as a person, but when he lied to me, he lied to the Senate, and he lied to the people I represent. For that reason I am asking him and demanding that he resign today.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that today I honor Hot Springs National Park, which will soon be celebrating its 175th anniversary. Hot Springs is a magical place which has brought great distinction to my State because of its history and because of the allure it has held for generations of visitors. On April 20, 1832, President Andrew Jackson and the U.S. Congress established Hot Springs Reservation in order to protect the 47 hot springs flowing from the southwestern slope of Hot Springs Mountain. In 1921, it was renamed Hot Springs National Park and became America's 18th national park. Hot Springs remains the first protected area in the Nation. People have used the hot springs for more than 200 years to treat illnesses and to relax. The reservation eventually developed into a well-known resort nicknamed, ``The American Spa,'' because it attracted not only the wealthy but also indigent health seekers from around the world. In fact, their motto was, ``We Bathe the World.'' Eight historic bathhouses make up ``Bathhouse Row'' with the Fordyce Bathhouse housing the park's visitor center. The entire ``Bathhouse Row'' area is a National Historic Landmark District that contains the grandest collection of bathhouses of its kind in North America. It was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on November 13, 1974. On April 20, 2007, Hot Springs National Park and the Nation will celebrate 175 years of preserving our natural resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in continuing to protect our great American treasures, one of the greatest of which is Hot Springs National Park.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two communications bills. First, I am introducing the Child Safe Viewing Act, a bill to develop the next generation of parental control technology. Last year, following several hearings and forums on decency, I concluded that the V-Chip is not an adequate solution for parents to prevent their children from viewing adult content, especially in a world of 500 channels and video streaming. During the 1996 Telecommunications Act debate, President Clinton urged inclusion of a mandatory V-Chip device, and in collaboration with Congress, the FCC, and the entertainment industry, the V-Chip was born. The V-Chip was an important beginning to control child access to adult material. Over a decade has passed since the 1996 Act, and the world of communications has changed. However, the issues that inspired the V- Chip continue to exist today for not only television but for the Internet and other video streaming devices. The Child Safe Viewing Act is a pragmatic approach to addressing the pitfalls of video content not intended for kids, and it acts on current law. It simply directs the Federal Communications Commission to begin a proceeding on the requirements in Section 551 of the V-Chip law. Section 551 states that the Commission shall take action on alternative blocking technology as it is developed. This mandate is clear and the time has come. We must engage in this issue now to ensure that families have the tools to keep inappropriate and sometimes dangerous material out of their children's view. I am also introducing ED 1.0, a bill to advance online higher education opportunities for minorities. Last Congress, Senator Allen and I introduced a bill that would establish a digital and wireless network technology program for minority-serving institutions, and it was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee. Regrettably, I am concerned that the cost of the bill will prohibit it from moving in this Congress. But the needs of this Nation's minorities are not standing still. ED 1.0 would allow some of our goals to move forward now by creating a pilot online degree program at four minority-serving institutions. African-American, Hispanic, and Tribal serving colleges and universities in socially and economically disadvantaged areas would be eligible to participate in this program to help define what works in ensuring that minorities are obtaining higher education degrees With the high costs of networks and limited availability of resources, the program would provide a national ``lessons learned'' about how to develop and implement flexible degree programs in fields such as health or education, which are currently underserved in the disadvantaged community. The goals of ED 1.0 will make education a reality for thousands of Americans, and I hope this bill will have the support of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I honor Katherine Fort who recently retired after 52 years of service as treasurer for the City of Warren, AR. She is an amazing woman who is still quite active at the age of 91. Mrs. Fort took office on January 1, 1955, and officially retired on December 31, 2006, with uninterrupted service to the city of Warren. She served under seven mayors during her tenure and was an incredible asset to the people of Bradley County. When Mrs. Fort began her service, she operated with an annual budget of $115,000 and had one account. At the time of her retirement, she was responsible for an annual operating budget of $7 million and had 37 accounts under her jurisdiction. And one amazing fact I would like to add, she handled all this without any support staff or assistants in her entire 52 years as city treasurer. I would like my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Fort on this well-deserved retirement. But most of all, please join me in thanking Katherine Fort for her dedicated service to the city of Warren and to the State of Arkansas.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to introduce two communications bills. First, I am introducing the Child Safe Viewing Act, a bill to develop the next generation of parental control technology. Last year, following several hearings and forums on decency, I concluded that the V-Chip is not an adequate solution for parents to prevent their children from viewing adult content, especially in a world of 500 channels and video streaming. During the 1996 Telecommunications Act debate, President Clinton urged inclusion of a mandatory V-Chip device, and in collaboration with Congress, the FCC, and the entertainment industry, the V-Chip was born. The V-Chip was an important beginning to control child access to adult material. Over a decade has passed since the 1996 act, and the world of communications has changed. However, the issues that inspired the V- Chip continue to exist today for not only television but for the Internet and other video streaming devices. The Child Safe Viewing Act is a pragmatic approach to addressing the pitfalls of video content not intended for kids, and it acts on current law. It simply directs the Federal Communications Commission to begin a proceeding on the requirements in section 551 of the V-Chip law. Section 551 states that the Commission shall take action on alternative blocking technology as it is developed. This mandate is clear and the time has come. We must engage in this issue now to ensure that families have the tools to keep inappropriate and sometimes dangerous material out of their children's view. I am also introducing ED 1.0, a bill to advance online higher education opportunities for minorities. Last Congress, Senator Allen and I introduced a bill that would establish a digital and wireless network technology program for minority-serving institutions, and it was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee. Regrettably, I am concerned that the cost of the bill will prohibit it from moving in this Congress. But the needs to this Nation's minorities are not standing still. ED 1.0 would allow some of our goals to move forward now by creating a pilot online degree program at four minority-serving institutions. African-American, Hispanic, and tribal serving colleges and universities in socially and economically disadvantaged areas would be eligible to participate in this program to help define what works in ensuring that minorities are obtaining higher education degrees. With the high costs of networks and limited availability of resources, the program would provide a national ``lessons learned'' about how to develop and implement flexible degree programs in fields such as health or education, which are currently underserved in the disadvantaged community. The goals of ED 1.0 will make education a reality for thousands of Americans, and I hope this bill will have the support of my colleagues.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that today I honor the sixth grade girls' basketball team of Miss Selma's school in Little Rock, AR, for finishing in first place of the regular basketball season. This is a team that is comprised of eight basketball players who have played together since the third grade. The talented members of the team are: Sam Anderson, Elizabeth Campbell, Cassidy Johnson, Paige Logsdon, Audrey Peters, Laura Russell, Gracie Sloan, and Peyton Watts. While all the teams in the league are worthy of mention, the regular season came down to one game, a match-up with the Little Rock Christian team. Little Rock Christian has a great team. In fact, the Little Rock Christian team has a dynasty and they had never been beaten in 4 years of play and had won all 70 games they had ever played. The game showcased great athleticism displayed by both teams. The battle was intense for the duration of the contest. The difference in the game was decided by a free throw made in the last few seconds, which gave a 16 to 15 victory to the Miss Selma's Shooters. It was a classic and will be remembered for many years by all that witnessed it and both teams deserve credit for the manner and intensity for which they competed. I would like my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Miss Selma's Shooters sixth grade girls' basketball team for winning the regular season. But most of all please join me in thanking them for the way in which they show appreciation to the game and to all teams that they play.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to introduce two communications bills. First, I am introducing the Child Safe Viewing Act, a bill to develop the next generation of parental control technology. Last year, following several hearings and forums on decency, I concluded that the V-Chip is not an adequate solution for parents to prevent their children from viewing adult content, especially in a world of 500 channels and video streaming. During the 1996 Telecommunications Act debate, President Clinton urged inclusion of a mandatory V-Chip device, and in collaboration with Congress, the FCC, and the entertainment industry, the V-Chip was born. The V-Chip was an important beginning to control child access to adult material. Over a decade has passed since the 1996 act, and the world of communications has changed. However, the issues that inspired the V- Chip continue to exist today for not only television but for the Internet and other video streaming devices. The Child Safe Viewing Act is a pragmatic approach to addressing the pitfalls of video content not intended for kids, and it acts on current law. It simply directs the Federal Communications Commission to begin a proceeding on the requirements in section 551 of the V-Chip law. Section 551 states that the Commission shall take action on alternative blocking technology as it is developed. This mandate is clear and the time has come. We must engage in this issue now to ensure that families have the tools to keep inappropriate and sometimes dangerous material out of their children's view. I am also introducing ED 1.0, a bill to advance online higher education opportunities for minorities. Last Congress, Senator Allen and I introduced a bill that would establish a digital and wireless network technology program for minority-serving institutions, and it was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee. Regrettably, I am concerned that the cost of the bill will prohibit it from moving in this Congress. But the needs to this Nation's minorities are not standing still. ED 1.0 would allow some of our goals to move forward now by creating a pilot online degree program at four minority-serving institutions. African-American, Hispanic, and tribal serving colleges and universities in socially and economically disadvantaged areas would be eligible to participate in this program to help define what works in ensuring that minorities are obtaining higher education degrees. With the high costs of networks and limited availability of resources, the program would provide a national ``lessons learned'' about how to develop and implement flexible degree programs in fields such as health or education, which are currently underserved in the disadvantaged community. The goals of ED 1.0 will make education a reality for thousands of Americans, and I hope this bill will have the support of my colleagues.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with Senator Chambliss and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation that is important to my constituents and young veterans all across America. Many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are having a difficult time finding work. I find this troubling, and I feel that we have a responsibility to support our returning veterans who are looking for work. Currently, unemployment among veterans between the ages of 20 and 24 is over 15 percent--nearly double the unemployment for non-veterans in the same age group. At the same time, many of the fastest growing sectors of our economy are in vast need of an additional skilled labor source. The Department of Labor has identified industry sectors that are expected to experience high growth over the next several years, including trucking, construction, hospitality, and financial services. In fact, the trucking industry, which is very important to my State, currently has a driver shortage of 20,000 drivers. That shortage is expected to grow to 110,000 by 2014. We have industries in need of skilled employees and we have many young men and women in need of good, high-paying jobs. Our legislation is intended to help match those with needs through increased training benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill. The GI Bill, established after World War II, was a commitment that Congress made to veterans of that war. We would like to extend that commitment to reflect the job opportunities of our modern economy. To accomplish this task, I join Senators Chambliss and Mikulski in re- introducing the Veterans Employment and Training Act--the VET Act. During the 109th Congress, Senator Burns and I worked very hard on moving this legislation, and we made a lot of progress. Late last year, the language was approved by the Committee on Veterans Affairs and even passed the full Senate. Unfortunately, the clock ran out on the 109th Congress and the bill never became law. We were very close last Congress, and I'm hopeful that this Congress will continue moving the VET Act forward and make it law. The VET Act would expand for veterans the Accelerated Payment Program under the Montgomery GI bill to include job training education in five high-growth sectors of the economy--high technology, transportation, energy, construction, and hospitality--for the next 4 years to help veterans returning from the war on terror transition to the civilian workforce. Many of the training programs for employment in the identified sectors are short but they are often more costly at the beginning. The current structure of the GI Bill only provides veterans with the option of a smaller monthly stipend. This arrangement works well for traditional education institutions, such as 2 and 4-year institutions. However, this same arrangement is not conducive to the nature of our changing economy and the nature of high growth occupations. A reconfigured and expanded Accelerated Payment Program has the potential to pay big dividends for our veterans and our economy. The Arkansas Employment Security Department estimates that between one- third and one-half of all nonfarm jobs in Arkansas are in sectors that would benefit from this legislation. For the benefit of my colleagues, let me briefly review a few reasons why I think this legislation is a wise policy decision. First, I believe the VET Act will help veterans returning from Iraq and the war on terror. Accelerating GI Bill benefits for training in high-growth occupations will help place veterans faster in good-paying jobs. Second, passing the VET Act will encourage returning veterans to pursue careers in occupations that will contribute most to the U.S. economy. These sectors identified by the Department of Labor are expected to add large numbers of jobs to our economy over the next several years. This legislation will assist in matching the available workforce with our needs to keep our economy growing. Third, the VET Act will help make short-term, high-cost training programs more affordable to veterans. GI bill benefits are paid monthly with a maximum monthly stipend of $1,000. Many of the training programs for occupations identified by the Department of Labor as high-growth are short term and high cost in nature. Truck driver training courses typically last 4 to 6 weeks, but can cost up to $6,000. Without this legislation, GI bill benefits will only cover between $1,000 and $1,500 of the cost. Such a low offset discourages veterans from using GI bill benefits from these types of training programs. Accelerated benefits would cover 60 percent the cost, and benefits would be paid in a lump sum. Last, the VET Act will help place veterans in good-paying jobs at a very low additional cost to the Federal Government. This bill merely enhances benefits already available--the total cost of the accelerated benefits program for high-tech occupations is only $5.7 million. This is a very small percentage of total benefits available to veterans already. Any additional cost will be small and incremental compared to the immediate payoff of reducing unemployment among young veterans and enhancing employment opportunities in high-growth occupations. To date, 10 veterans and industry organizations have endorsed our legislation, including the American Legion, AMVETS, American Trucking Associations, Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association, Associated General Contractors, and the National Restaurant Association, among others. Distinguished colleagues, I believe this is good legislation that will benefit our veterans and our economy. I look forward to working with all of you to enact the VET Act and stand ready to assist you in your mission of helping our veterans succeed in civilian life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the Veterans Employment Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.