Floor Statements

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.