Mark Pryor

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.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to make the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act permanent. This measure corrects a discrepancy in the Tax Code that penalizes certain service men and women serving in combat situations. To give my colleagues a bit of history and perspective on this: In 2003 I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of the committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how our Tax Code treats our military. I was very pleased when they agreed to work with me, and was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the General Accounting Office, GAO. It was an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process. The GAO raised many interesting findings but there was one especially important issue that demanded our immediate attention. In a nutshell service men and women who were serving in combat zones and receiving nontaxable combat pay were not able to also take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Care Tax Credit. The result was that thousands of our men and women serving in combat--serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe--were seeing a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit and in effect losing money. In other words, the Tax Code had the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. The GAO report characterized this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I saw it as just plain wrong and I am pleased to introduce legislation to fix this glitch. In 2004, we passed the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allowed men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and child tax credit benefits. In other words, they would be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. However, this legislation only made permanent the child tax credit benefit, while the earned income tax credit provision must be continuously extended. As of December 2006, the earned income provision was extended for another year, but I believe we must work to permanently resolve this glitch and ensure our men and women in combat are fairly treated. I would like to take the opportunity to thank cosponsors Senator John Warner and Senator Blanche Lincoln for their leadership and assistance to help gamer support for this bill. The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this really affects. We're talking about troops that tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, those in lower pay grades, those who are married with children, and have little or no savings or spousal income. The GAO analysis suggested that the amount of the tax benefit loss could be up to $4,500 for enlisted personnel and $3,200 for officers. This is real money--make or break money--to many of these families that are already under enormous stress. I want to work in bipartisan fashion and permanently extend this tax provision. This bill corrects the problem and lets our troops, risking life and limb, know that while they are away fighting for us we will be here in the Senate fighting for them and their families.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to make the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act permanent. This measure corrects a discrepancy in the Tax Code that penalizes certain service men and women serving in combat situations. To give my colleagues a bit of history and perspective on this: In 2003 I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of the committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how our Tax Code treats our military. I was very pleased when they agreed to work with me, and was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the General Accounting Office, GAO. It was an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process. The GAO raised many interesting findings but there was one especially important issue that demanded our immediate attention. In a nutshell service men and women who were serving in combat zones and receiving nontaxable combat pay were not able to also take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Care Tax Credit. The result was that thousands of our men and women serving in combat--serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe--were seeing a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit and in effect losing money. In other words, the Tax Code had the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. The GAO report characterized this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I saw it as just plain wrong and I am pleased to introduce legislation to fix this glitch. In 2004, we passed the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allowed men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and child tax credit benefits. In other words, they would be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. However, this legislation only made permanent the child tax credit benefit, while the earned income tax credit provision must be continuously extended. As of December 2006, the earned income provision was extended for another year, but I believe we must work to permanently resolve this glitch and ensure our men and women in combat are fairly treated. I would like to take the opportunity to thank cosponsors Senator John Warner and Senator Blanche Lincoln for their leadership and assistance to help gamer support for this bill. The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this really affects. We're talking about troops that tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, those in lower pay grades, those who are married with children, and have little or no savings or spousal income. The GAO analysis suggested that the amount of the tax benefit loss could be up to $4,500 for enlisted personnel and $3,200 for officers. This is real money--make or break money--to many of these families that are already under enormous stress. I want to work in bipartisan fashion and permanently extend this tax provision. This bill corrects the problem and lets our troops, risking life and limb, know that while they are away fighting for us we will be here in the Senate fighting for them and their families.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, In reflection of the New Year, I have thought about what I wanted my New Year's resolution to be. I had a wonderful holiday that I was fortunate to spend with my family, and I thought about those in the world who did not have that same opportunity. World peace is our ambition, but, today I want to speak about our hope for the people of Darfur, Sudan. I rise to add my voice, and that of my constituency, on the crisis in Darfur. Everyday I hear from Arkansans concerned about the escalating chaos and destruction happening in Darfur. Whether it is through church groups, schools, the newspaper, Internet, or the television, the reports from Darfur are shocking and disturbing. Darfur, Sudan, is 7,117 miles away from Little Rock, AR, but it is not removed from the thoughts and prayers of our citizens. The statistics on this crisis are heartbreaking. It has been estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 people have been killed and thousands of women have been raped. Over 2 million people have been displaced. Their lives have been completely uprooted, and their only chance of survival is refugee camps. These makeshift camps provide little shelter and are subjected to raids by armed militias. Aid workers and organizations have recently pulled out of the region due to safety concerns, and the conflict is spreading to neighboring countries, destabilizing governments that may be ill-equipped to integrate an influx of refugees. Moreover, the Sudanese government has restricted media and diplomatic access to the region. While the United States has taken considerable actions to support an end to the horrible violence in Darfur, the situation continues to deteriorate. Darfur is the world's crisis, and we must do more to ensure that an effective peacekeeping force is in place to stem the escalating rape, murder, and destruction. I am hopeful that the United Nations' most recent effort will work. I am encouraged that so many humanitarian organizations have worked tirelessly to find a resolution to this matter. It is my wish that peace and stability will come to Darfur in 2007. The people of Darfur have been deprived of the most basic of human liberties: the right to live in peace. It is our responsibility as U.S. Senators, as Americans, and as humanitarians to do all that we can to bring about an end to this world crisis.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I commend an outstanding Arkansas company for a truly amazing gift. Murphy Oil Corporation, an El Dorado, AR, based company, has always been a national leader in philanthropy by providing substantial donations for many very worthwhile causes, especially education. Murphy Oil's recent announcement to establish the El Dorado Promise may be one of the most significant and groundbreaking gifts of any business to any group of people in recent years. El Dorado Promise is an extraordinary scholarship program. The Promise will provide the opportunity for every graduate of El Dorado High School to pursue higher education by granting a scholarship to these students to be used at community colleges or public universities around the country. This scholarship will cover tuition and other expenses for many of these students for up to 5 years. The leadership at Murphy Oil has shown that they truly understand that in order to adequately prepare for the future we must make significant investments in the children of today. This gift represents that significant investment. I would like to congratulate the students, families, teachers, and community of El Dorado, AR. This is a wonderful gift that you truly deserve, and I am excited for the tremendous prospects it will create for you. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the actions of Claiborne Deming, president and CEO of Murphy Oil. A great business leader known for his strong support of education, Mr. Deming has served on the Arkansas Board of Education, helped found the Arkansans for Education Reform Foundation, is president of the El Dorado Education Foundation, and continues to be a strong catalyst for investment in education. I have no doubt he was instrumental in providing these students and families the ability to fulfill their ambitions. Finally, I would like to personally thank Murphy Oil Corporation, Mr. Claiborne Deming, and members of the Murphy family for their unwavering support of El Dorado, the State of Arkansas, and the education system. There is no doubt the gift of the El Dorado Promise will better many lives and shape the future of Arkansas and the country in a brighter way.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on Federal efforts to improve rail and surface transportation security.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., to vote on committee organizational matters for the 110th Congress; immediately following the executive session the committee will meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining the State of Transit Security.''

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an organizational hearing, on Thursday, January 18, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Department of Justice Oversight'' on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 106. PANEL I: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 110th Congress by electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and to adopt the rules of the Committee and any other organizational business the Committee needs to consider.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to oil and gas royalty management at the Department of the Interior.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on intelligence assessments on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. PRYOR

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

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me notify the staff, Senator DeWine said he would certainly be flexible, if someone needed some time and needed to maybe cut in a little bit. He was certainly willing to work with whoever wanted to do that, but he did ask we seek unanimous consent for 1 hour.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the two same subject matters that the senior Senator from Arkansas talked about, in that order. I do want to talk about J.B. Hunt, but first I want to talk about the timber tax. Before I do, I ask unanimous consent for Senator DeWine to have 1 hour to finish his remarks, after the conclusion of the remarks of the junior Senator from Tennessee, who I understand is the last speaker in this sequence this evening.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Johnnie Bryan Hunt died a couple of days ago in Arkansas. I just spoke with his wife a few moments ago. As always, she was delightful, and she was very upbeat and very positive and really appreciated all the prayers and all the well-wishes she has received from Arkansas and from around the country over the last couple of days. Yesterday, we lost a great American and a great Arkansan and a great example to us all. Johnnie Bryan Hunt was born in Cleburne County, AK, in 1927 during the Great Depression. He left school at the age of 12 and went to work for his uncle in the sawmill. We were just talking about the timber industry in our State. He went to work for his uncle in the sawmill just to help the family get by, as many Americans did back in those days. He served in the U.S. Army. During his early career, he was a farmer, he was a lumber salesman, he was an auctioneer, and a truckdriver. Then he invented his own business. It was called a rice hull business. He got the rice hulls over in the eastern part of the State and trucked them over to the western part of the State to make ``poultry bedding,'' as he called it, out of the rice hulls. That venture did not work out exactly the way he wanted it to. His first trucking company, which he formed as part of that and shortly thereafter, failed. He lost about $19,000 in that first venture. But like many Americans, J.B. Hunt didn't quit. He went back to the drawing board. He kept working. He knew he had the ability. He knew he had the gift of problem-solving. A few years later, he founded the trucking company which today is the largest publicly held truckload transportation company in North America, J.B. Hunt Trucking. Even though he started with 5 trucks and 7 trailers, today he has over 16,000 employees, 11,000 trucks, and 47,000 trailers and containers. He did this with hard work, he did this with a lot of dedication and with a lot of focus. But one thing they say about J.B. Hunt the man and the company he founded is they are smart. They use technology, they are very innovative, and they work very hard to get on the cutting edge of that industry. In fact, J.B. Hunt is really a poster child for the American success story. We know that through hard work and opportunity, things can happen for you in this country. And he is proof that can happen in a very big way. During the course of his life, he was director of the American Trucking Association, the American Studies Institute Advisory Board, the Intermodal Transportation Institute, which he was innovative in, the University of Arkansas Campaign for the 21st Century, and the Northwest Arkansas Business Council. In addition to those boards and those industry groups on which he served, he also was extremely giving with his resources. Two of his favorite charities are the Arkansas Easter Seals and the March of Dimes. I know he will be sorely missed in his hometown of Lowell. People always associated Arkansas with J.B. Hunt the man and the trucking company because he really did put it on the map. He came to northwest Arkansas and ended up in northwest Arkansas before this period of exceptional growth started there. These two counties up in the northern corner of our State are two of the fastest growing counties in America. The companies that are there are companies such as Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt, and, of course, the University of Arkansas is in that corner of the State as well. People ask me: Is there something in the water up there? What is it about this little area of your State? Is it the great quality of life? It is the great work ethic? Yes and yes. More than anything, it is about great leadership, and J.B. Hunt was part of that great leadership. He was on the team of men and women who moved their communities forward and in many ways not only changed those communities but changed the State and changed the world. I join Arkansans and Americans in offering my condolences and prayers to J.B. Hunt's family and his friends, including his wife Johnelle and their children Jane and Bryan. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I may, let me talk about this timber tax issue. Clearly, forests provide a lot of jobs for many people all over this country. For Arkansas, those jobs are very important to our State's economy. But also one thing that we often forget is these forests are extremely good for our environment. They absorb carbon dioxide, they clean waterways, they provide natural habitat for all kinds of species out there, and they help keep an ecological balance in our country. One of the great developments that has occurred in the last generation is that this country and the people in the timber industry have become much better, much more adept at managing the forests in a very good, long-term business way but also in a great way for the Nation's environment. In fact, when you look at Arkansas, the timber industry has done such a good job there that it is now the No. 2 manufacturing industry in the State. I know that is the same in other States. There are many States that have very large timber industries, but we oftentimes take it for granted. I am looking around this room and seeing all the wood products. I am reading on one now and using one as a file folder and speaking behind one and standing on one. Often we take that for granted, but the wood products industry is very important for this country. In fact, you could say it helped build this country. Unfortunately, now the forestry industry, the wood products industry's health is in jeopardy. They have two major problems. No. 1, with globalization, they have a lot of foreign competition. The folks I talk to in the industry, they will understand that. They are ready to meet that challenge. They understand it is a new day and it is very competitive. They are getting a lot of pressure from places such as Canada and rain forest timber and materials that are coming out of Asia and Russia, and they understand that. They are willing to fight that fight if the playing field is leveled. But the other problem is internal. It is not from foreign competitors, it is, frankly, from the Government and it is the Tax Code and how the Tax Code works within the industry. If I can give one example, last week there was an announcement in Mountain Pine, AR. Now Mountain Pine only has about 772 people who live in the community, but there is a mill there that makes plywood. That mill just announced it is closing. Senator Lincoln mentioned this a few moments ago. That mill has 340 jobs. That one employer in that town of 772 hires 340 people and employs them. It is closed. It is gone. Certainly, I hope at some point in the future the community can rally and find another use for that facility. Maybe they can get someone else in the wood products industry in. Who knows. But that is a symptom of what is going on because the owner of that facility is on the wrong side of the Tax Code. We talked about the timber tax. We have a fix that we proposed. Senator Lincoln and many others worked very hard to try to get this done. But because they are on the wrong side of the Tax Code, they are having to close plants. Frankly, it is causing a huge strain on their bottom line. One of the things I need to do when I am on that subject is to thank Senators Dole, Hutchison, and Cornyn, who have been very helpful in cosponsoring a bill that we think will help solve this problem. Price Waterhouse Coopers & Lybrand, in April of 2005, wrote a report, and they found that the U.S. corporate forestry tax burden is the second highest compared to seven major competitor nations. Analysis showed that the tax burden of the U.S. forestry industry is a full 16 percentage points higher than the median of their competitor nations. We understand that in this country we have more responsible foresting, we understand we have stricter environmental regulations, and we also understand that our tax burden may be a little bit higher here and there. But the unfortunate thing going on here is it is disproportional within the industry depending on how the company is organized. Here is what I mean. If a company is a C corporation, it is taxed one way. If it is a REIT, it is taxed another way. That means the folks that are REITs have a big tax advantage over the traditional companies. This has a disproportionately difficult effect on small companies, the family-owned businesses in places such as Arkansas and Louisiana and the State of Washington and in other places where you have a lot of family-owned timber businesses, because they don't have the resources to recalibrate themselves in the form of REITs. It doesn't make sense for their business. What has happened, given our Tax Code, is basically the Federal Government says: Look, if you want to stay in the business, you have to organize yourself in a certain way. That is not fair. What is happening all around this country is that these timber companies are making business decisions based on the Tax Code. We have seen this happen. We know businesses are going to adapt to the conditions they have, and one of those conditions is the Tax Code. They are always going to adjust and adapt according to that. But when they start to make decisions such as this which are so dramatic and alter their business models so much, bad things are going to happen eventually. If you look at the real estate bubble which burst back in the 1980s, a lot of those deals in the early 1980s which were done in the real estate market were done for tax reasons. They did not make any sense in the business world, but they made a heck of a lot of sense under the Tax Code. Finally, when the Congress got around to closing some of those loopholes and simplifying the Tax Code, the bubble burst. My concern with the forestry industry is that someday when we reconcile these problems, it is going to be too late for a lot of these companies, especially the small family-owned businesses. This is not strictly an Arkansas problem. The latest employment figures I have from my State are that the industry employs about 43,000 people, with an annual payroll of $1.3 billion. That is a lot of money. That is a big part of our State's economy. However, if you look around the country, they employ about 2 million workers, with an annual payroll of $51 billion. This is not just a local problem in the State of Arkansas. Both Senators from Arkansas are here talking about it, but it is a problem for the whole country and the Nation's economy. I ask my colleagues to support a better timber tax policy. We want a tax policy that is fair, that restores competitiveness, that provides job security for hundreds of communities and families, that benefits the environment, and which is really the best thing for the country as well as for the industry.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from Ohio for raising this important question. Section 550 does not contain any language regarding its preemptive effect. I know there have been some in the other House who believe that this silence means the legislation would have no effect on State or local attempts to regulate chemical security--in other words, that it gives them a green light to go farther. I want to state clearly my belief to the contrary. As we all know, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, a Federal law that is silent in this way can still occupy the field and impliedly preempt any State legislation on the same topic. Historically, Congress has done so in the security area, whether it be nuclear security or aviation security.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am very proud to say that my father has been nominated to a seat on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I think he will do an excellent job. I think we will all be proud of his services there. However, because he is my father, I decided to recuse myself from that nomination and abstain from any votes. I don't think it has all been worked out yet, but my anticipation is that it will not be done by rollcall vote but by voice vote or some other type of vote. I would like the record to show that I am abstaining from that vote and recusing myself from that nomination. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this legislation. They have done a fantastic job in getting us to where we are today. Also, I thank Senator Talent of Missouri, who has been my cosponsor on the amendment I wish to visit with you about, very briefly, today. Port Security remains a major vulnerability for this country, and tied to port security is trucking security. The 9/11 Commission identified foreign trucking entities entering the United States as a top homeland security concern. The DOT inspector general has recommended that various security enhancements to the trucking security provisions in this bill be made. This goes back to 2004, but they have largely been ignored since that time. If you look at the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves today, we have NAFTA, where NAFTA allows foreign trucks to come into the United States within 25 miles of the U.S. border. They can pass between Mexico and Canada. But what we have found in reality is that, although most are playing by the rules, and that is good, there are some truckdrivers and trucking companies violating the provisions of U.S. law by delivering goods and picking up goods far outside the scope of where they are supposed to do it. Trucking is very important to this country. It may not be very exciting to some people, but it is very important to this country because 70 percent of our Nation's cargo is carried by truck. It is also important to homeland security because trucks have been used in terrorist attacks in years past. What Senator Talent and I are trying to do with our amendment--and the managers have graciously agreed to accept it in the managers' package--is to direct the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security to first verify legal status of all licensed commercial truck drivers operating in the United States. Right now there are about 11 million of those, and there are about 40,000 new ones every month. First, we have to verify legal status. Second, we eliminate commercial driver's license fraud. Of course, we know that it is not perfect. We will probably not eliminate every single incident of that, but we are going to make a very serious stab at eliminating as much as possible. Third--this is very important--we give State governments and local law enforcement uniform guidelines and tools for enforcing immigration violations by truckers who are operating beyond the scope of their authority. This is something that we have seen in Arkansas--I am sure that Senator Talent has seen it in Missouri--and all around the country. People on the ground down in the trenches, local law enforcement--in our case, it is the highway police--don't have any clear direction on what they can do if they find someone who is driving illegally under these circumstances. We do all this and give them 1 year to comply with this amendment. We are basically taking areas that have been identified by the 9/11 Commission or by the DOT inspector general, and we are holding DOT's and DHS's feet to the fire to make sure they do the right thing when it comes to immigration and homeland security. It is a win-win-win across the board. It is good for the United States economy, it is good for our trucking industry, and it is good for United States security and homeland security. It will reward the good guys and punish the bad guys. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the fact that September has been designated as Craniofacial Acceptance Month. Craniofacial abnormalities are abnormalities that affect the skull and face. According to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, ``craniofacial defects are among the most common of all birth defects. These disorders are often devastating to parents and children alike. Surgery, dental care, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation may help ameliorate the problems, but often at a great cost and over many years.'' Victims of craniofacial anomalies usually have to endure many expensive procedures throughout their lifetimes, the costs of which can add up to cost millions of dollars. Facial deformities give their victims a variety of aesthetic and developmental problems that differ in severity and occurrence. The common condition, cleft lip, an abnormality where the lip does not completely connect, can vary from a simple disconnect to a gaping opening that goes from the lip to the nose. It is easy to understand the developmental and respiratory problems this could present. Fortunately, this condition can usually be corrected through one or two simple reconstructive surgeries. But what about other anomalies that are not as easily corrected like craniosynostosis, a condition where the soft spots of an infant's skull close too early, hindering normal brain and skull growth? Or Goldenhar syndrome, where one side of the face is underdeveloped affecting the mouth, ear and jaw? Unfortunately these do not represent the most severe or rarest craniofacial defects. At only 10 months old, Wendelyn Osborne, who grew up in the small town of Ashdown, AR, was diagnosed with Craniometaphyseal Dysplasia, or simply CMD. CMD is a rare affliction which affects only 200 people worldwide and was depicted in the 1985 movie ``Mask'' starring Cher. CMD involves an overgrowth of bone which never deteriorates. This caused, in her case, an abnormal appearance, bilateral facial paralysis and deafness. Other cases can include those characteristics as well as blindness and joint pain. Yet despite the challenges she has faced, Wendelyn's life has truly been blessed. Her life expectancy was only 14 years at birth, but after 17 reconstructive surgeries and two hearing aids, Wendelyn is still alive today at the age of 40. It was not until 2003 that Wendelyn was able to meet and interact with other people with craniofacial conditions. She attended the Annual Cher's Family retreat and was introduced to CCA, the Children's Craniofacial Association. Wendelyn saw the impact of support and encouragement through the programs and the families associated with CCA, and has been active with the organization ever since. CCA has designated September as National Craniofacial Acceptance Month in hopes of raising awareness of individuals with facial differences. It is not a secret that appearance plays a key part in how individuals are accepted in our society. People with facial differences, in addition to medical problems, have a much harder time adjusting in society and developing successful relationships. Such individuals have to deal with a series of consequences that arise from uncontrollable circumstances of their birth. Marking September as National Craniofacial Acceptance Month brings attention to an issue that can no longer be ignored. Hopefully, by raising awareness of craniofacial defects, our larger society will begin to show understanding and acceptance of those who live with these physical, medical, and emotional challenges. Understanding and increased public awareness of craniofacial disorders and abnormalities would let people like Wendelyn Osborne and hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals know that they are not unwanted and not alone in their battle with craniofacial conditions. I would like to commend CCA on taking an important step to raise awareness about this issue. I join the Children's Craniofacial Association in looking forward to the day when our Nation will ``look beyond the face, to the heart within.'' I salute the Children's Craniofacial Association, Wendelyn Osborne, and all of the children and adults who live with these challenges and the families and persons who support them.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment that calls for a Pentagon report on several aspects of the assistance we provide to the widows and children of our fallen soldiers. In his second inaugural address, President Lincoln said, ``let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' That simple, eloquent phrase has become the motto of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but it certainly applies to programs run by the Department of Defense as well. Today we are considering the bill that funds the Department of Defense, including the offices that provide benefits to the survivors of our servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have recently seen and heard about enough instances of wives who are having problems getting the survivor benefits they should be getting, of delays in implementing a new health care benefit for the children of servicemembers who died on active duty, and similar problems that I think the Congress should hear from the Pentagon about them. In 18 months the regulations for this new health care program are not finished. That is costing a widow money or it is keeping her children from the health care they need. Or both. I would like to hear from the Pentagon what is taking so long. A number of problems and delays I have heard or read of in the various benefit programs may be attributable to a simple lack of enough personnel to process forms, take calls, and get payments out. I want to hear from the Pentagon if there are enough people on board to get this important job done so that the families of our fallen soldiers do not suffer any more hardship than they already must. I do commend the Defense Department for setting up a new call center that is designed to help survivors navigate the process through which they sign up for and receive these various benefits. I also want to know how that's working. For these reasons I am introducing an amendment that asks the Secretary of Defense to report back to Congress on these questions. It is fine for us to establish benefit programs but just as important to keep an eye on them and make sure they work, and without delays. I hope this amendment will be adopted, and I ask my colleagues for their support.