Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Robert Casey, Herb Kohl, and Tom Udall to introduce the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

Health care reform is a national priority--far too many Americans do not have access to meaningful, affordable health insurance. But even if every person in the U.S. had health insurance, we do not have a cohesive or coordinated strategy to address health workforce emergencies and shortages, and problems with reliable access to quality, affordable care. Over 20 percent of Americans are living in health professions shortage areas without access to adequate medical, dental, and mental and behavioral health services. This workforce deficiency will worsen as the population ages and grows by an estimated 25 million individuals per decade and, could be severely exacerbated by epidemics and disasters. It is estimated that without intervention, the United States will experience shortages of as many as 200,000 physicians and one million nurses by 2020. It takes many years to create a pipeline of health professionals. I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 to coordinate our health workforce strategy, to build and maintain this pipeline, so that health and safety of every American is protected. The legislation is based on the most recent recommendations developed by Council on Graduate Medical Education and other health workforce experts.

This legislation addresses these issues in an unprecedented and comprehensive manner. It creates a Permanent National Health Workforce Commission to assure that the Federal investment in the education of health professionals is a public good that address the needs of the American people. The Commission is tasked to design, revise, implement and evaluate programs, grants, and regulations related to the nation's health workforce.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 expands the Medicare medical home demonstration project. This pilot program would include 1,000 medical home primary care providers working in interdisciplinary teams. These clinicians will provide the highest quality medical care using the best health information technology, and personalized, coordinated, and accessible care.

But new models are not enough. We have allowed our primary care educational infrastructure to crumble. Without intervention, the decline will likely continue, and access to care in underserved areas will rapidly deteriorate. Family physicians represent 58 percent of the rural physician workforce, 70 percent of non-federal physicians in whole-county health professional shortage areas, and 78 percent of primary care physician full-time equivalents in the National Health Service Corps. Yet, the number of graduates from medical school in the U.S. who choose to practice family medicine has plummeted 50 percent in less than 10 years. Currently, less than 5 percent of graduates from medical school specialize in primary care. This is despite the fact that one of the most significant measures of the effectiveness and efficiency of a healthcare system is the degree to which the population has access to meaningful and coordinated primary care.

Experts tell us that the dearth of primary care providers may be attributed to many factors including low reimbursement levels and a lack of federal incentives to teaching institutions to promote primary care. My legislation would allow the National Health Workforce Commission to analyze these issues and recommend solutions including changes in Federal reimbursement systems. For example, this bill calls for improved transparency and accountability for Federal dollars spent for medical education through direct Graduate Medical Education, GME, and Indirect Medical Education, IME, and money paid in Disproportionate Share, DSH, support for safety net services provided under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

This legislation also substantially increases funding for the National Health Service Corps. This will help provide healthcare access to the areas of our country that are in most desperate need. Also, included are expanded loan forgiveness and grant programs to develop new training programs in rural and other underserved communities to help us train health professionals in areas where they are needed.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 establishes a U.S. Public Health Sciences Track to train physicians, dentists, nurses, physician assistants, mental and behavior health specialists, pharmacists, and public health professionals emphasizing team-based service, public health, epidemiology, and emergency preparedness and response in affiliated institutions. Students in this program are accepted as Commission Corps officers in the U.S. Public Health Service and will receive tuition remission and a stipend with a two year service commitment for each year of school covered. This group will form an elite cadre of healthcare professionals that can be deployed when epidemics, natural or other disasters strike.

I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 with the understanding that our health workforce shortfall cannot be solved using a piecemeal approach. We must address health workforce issues in health care reform to guarantee access to quality care for all Americans but we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars used to support health professions education are spent wisely.

This legislation has received widespread support and is endorsement by the: National Association of Community Health Centers, National Rural Health Association, American Medical Students Association, Trust for America's Health, American Psychological Association, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Academy of Physician Assistants, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Rural Recruitment and Retention Network, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New Mexico Health Resources, New Mexico Medical Society, New Mexico Chapter of the American College of Physicians, and the Santa Fe Project Access.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in support of the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would reform the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, a law that governs the mining of hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, from our Federal lands.

When the Mining Law was enacted in 1872, in the aftermath of the California gold rush, Congress sought to encourage settlement of the West. Congress did this by offering free minerals and land to those who were willing to go West and mine. Congress put in place a system whereby miners could enter the public lands and locate claims for valuable mineral deposits, and mine the minerals with no further payment to the government. In the 1872 law, Congress also provided that the Federal Government would patent, or transfer title in fee simple, to the mining claims on the public domain for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre.

In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act, and removed oil, gas, coal, and certain other minerals from the operation of the Mining Law. In so doing, Congress enacted a management regime that requires the leasing of these minerals. In addition, Congress required payment of per-acre rentals and ad valorem royalties based on the value of production of the oil, gas and coal, providing a return to the public for the production of publicly-owned resources.

However, as we all know, the Mining Law of 1872 continues to govern the disposition of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. While Congress has stepped in and prevented the patenting of lands through annual appropriations riders, patenting provisions allowing the transfer of mineralized Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 per acre are still on the books. In addition, to this day under the Mining Law, billions of dollars of hardrock minerals can be mined from Federal lands without payment of a royalty. General land management and environmental laws apply, but there are no specific statutory provisions under the Mining Law setting surface management or environmental standards.

Efforts to comprehensively reform the Mining Law have been ongoing literally for decades, but results have thus far been elusive. Congress came close to enacting comprehensive reform in 1994, and Congress has enacted moratoria on patent issuance and has imposed claim maintenance fees through the appropriations process. The House passed reform legislation last Congress and several of us in the Senate had discussions regarding how we could address this issue.

There is a growing number of people saying that finally this Congress may be the time to achieve this long-awaited reform. Chairman Rahall, a champion of reform in the House of Representatives, has again introduced mining reform legislation. The bill that I introduce today differs in many significant ways from the House legislation, and builds on discussions in the Senate last Congress. My bill, like other reform proposals, reflects a view that the law needs to be amended to ensure that the public gets a fair return for its resources, that environmental and land use requirements are modernized, and that certainty is provided to the mining industry.

I note that my bill includes a range for both the royalty rate and the reclamation fee which will be set by the Secretary through a rulemaking process. This ensures that the Secretary will have the benefit of comments and information from interested parties and the public in setting the royalty and fee. We must look comprehensively at the subject of royalties and fees to ensure that we continue to maintain a healthy domestic hardrock mining industry with the benefits that the nation derives from that industry, including jobs and strategic minerals. At the same time, we want to ensure that the public gets the fair return on these resources that the American people deserve. I hope to receive additional input on this issue of royalties and fees during consideration of the bill.

Another part of this legislation warrants special attention--that is the provisions relating to abandoned hardrock mine reclamation. While estimates vary, a recent survey of States indicated that there are as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide with most of these in the West. These abandoned mines pose serious public health and safety risks. They also degrade our environment and pose special threats to our most precious resource: water.

As we discuss the size and shape of legislation to reform the 1872 law, there appears to be substantial support for enacting a robust hardrock abandoned mine land program. My legislation would enact a reclamation fee to fund this effort. In 1977, Congress enacted a coal AML program as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to address the serious problem of abandoned coal mines. This program was funded by a fee levied on coal production. We are overdue to enact a similar program to deal with abandoned hardrock mines.

Mr. President, the bill I introduce today reforms the Mining Law of 1872 in important ways. The key provisions of this bill are outlined.

The bill eliminates patenting of Federal lands, but grandfathers patent applications filed and meeting all requirements by September 30, 1994.

The bill makes modest increases in the annual claim maintenance fee, from $125 to $150, and claim location fee, from $30 to $50. The legislation requires the mine operator to pay a fee in exchange for the use of Federal land that is included within the mine permit area. The bill provides that fees collected are to be used for the administration of hardrock mining on Federal lands. Any excess funds are deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill provides that the production of all locatable minerals is subject to a royalty to be determined by the Secretary by regulation of not less than 2 percent and not more than 5 percent of the value of production, not including reasonable transportation, beneficiation, and processing costs. The royalty may vary based on the particular mineral concerned. No royalty will be collected from lands under permit that are producing in commercial quantities on the date of enactment. Royalty revenues will be deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill includes a provision for royalty reductions for all or part of a mining operation where the person conducting the mineral activities shows by clear and convincing evidence that without the reduction, production would not occur.

The bill states that permits are required for all mineral activities on Federal land except for ``casual use'' that ordinarily results in no or negligible disturbance. Mining permits are for a term of 30 years and so long thereafter as production occurs in commercial quantities. The operator must provide evidence of approved financial assurances sufficient to ensure completion of reclamation if performed by the Secretary concerned.

Financial assurances attributable to the cost of water treatment will not be released until the discharge has ceased for at least 5 years or the operator has met all applicable water quality standards for at least 5 years. The operator may be required to establish a trust fund or other long-term funding mechanism to provide financial assurances for long-term treatment of water or other long-term post-mining maintenance or monitoring requirements.

The Secretary of Agriculture must take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in administering mineral activities on National Forest System land. The bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to jointly issue regulations.

The bill requires within 3 years a review of certain lands to determine whether they will be available for future mining claim location. The Governor of a state, Chairman of an Indian tribe, or appropriate local official may petition the Secretary to undertake a review of an area.

The bill establishes a program for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines in 14 western states. Creates a Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund comprised of hardrock royalties, fees, and donations. Each operator of a hardrock mining operation on Federal, state, tribal or private land, must pay a reclamation fee established by the Secretary of not less than 0.3 percent, and not more than 1.0 percent, of the value of the production of the hardrock minerals for deposit into the Fund. The bill provides grant programs for all states for hardrock reclamation projects and for public entities and nonprofit organizations for collaborative restoration projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hardrock mining.

Reform of the Mining Law of 1872 is a matter that has come before the Congress repeatedly and that we simply must address. I ask that my colleagues

join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Day Factor Act of 2009.

This bill would encourage States to provide students with the time they need to master knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century, and to provide teachers with sufficient time to deliver effective instruction.

Twenty-first century learners, and their teachers, are faced with educational demands that simply did not exist decades ago. Right now, our economy is struggling. But we have a plan to get it back on track by investing aggressively in scientific R&D, and the deployment of new technologies. If we are to maintain and increase our Nation's competitiveness in the global economy for decades to come, we must allow every child the opportunity for a quality 21st century education. Today's students need to master mathematics, science, and technology, language arts and social studies, and they must also have opportunities to study foreign languages, the arts, and physical education. No one of these subject areas should be sacrificed at the expense of another. But that is the choices that teachers and students are faced with in schools across the United States. Teachers are being asked to cover more material than before, without being given more time. Students are expected to master more material than students of decades ago, without being given more time. Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated that reducing instructional time hinders learning. As summarized by the National Research Council, in its report on How People Learn, ``. . . significant learning takes major investments of time.''

How can a quality, well rounded education be achieved when the average school year in this country includes only 180 days--less than half the number of days in a calendar year? Children today are spending only 20 percent to 30 percent of their waking hours in school, even if they have a record of perfect attendance. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, by the time American students finish high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in the classroom.

In 1991, Congress established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, an independent advisory group charged with studying the relationship between instructional time and student learning in American schools. Members of the commission visited schools in the U.S. and abroad, and interviewed teachers, administrators, parents, and students. The Commission concluded that students and teachers in American schools are ``prisoners of time,'' captives of an agrarian- based school calendar that robs them of the opportunity for a quality education. To quote from their report, ``we have been asking the impossible of our students--that they learn as much as their foreign peers while spending only half as much time in core academic subjects.'' I add that this means we have also been asking the impossible of our teachers--to deliver effective instruction, without sufficient time. Clearly, our school calendars have not moved forward along with our societal and technological advances.

The Commission's 1994 report was not the first to recommend lengthening the school year. In 1983, the Nation at Risk report recommended increasing the school day to 7 hours per day, and the school year to 200 to 220 days per year, as a means to strengthen our nation's grip on global competitiveness. Well, it has been 25 years since that report, and I believe the time has come to give students and teachers the time they need for a quality education.

The School Day Factor Act will support efforts to expand the school year, by coordinating school funding with the length of the school year, and by encouraging schools to add five days to their calendar each year, for the next 4 years. This bill introduces a variable, the ``School Day Factor,'' that will reflect the number of mandatory full days included in a state's school year, and it may be adjusted to reflect any increases in instructional hours per day. This variable will be added to existing Title I allocation formulas that determine education grants to States.

The existing funding allocation formulas would be essentially unchanged for States whose school calendars meet a base level number of days per school year. By raising the base level school year length by 5 school days per year, over a 4 year period, the average school year calendar would reach the target of 200 school days per year by 2014. Inclusion of the School Day Factor will result in higher grants to states with school years that exceed the base level number of school days per year, and smaller grants to states with school years that fall below the base level.

I believe that schools are not only ready for this change, but that they are setting the pace for this movement. Some States and school districts have

already taken the initiative to expand their school year by 20 days per year. In my own State of New Mexico, a State initiated pilot program to extend kindergarten by 20 to 25 days per year led to such positive outcomes that the program was recently extended to third grade. Requests to participate have increased, as more school districts understand the benefits afforded by expanding students' and teachers' educational time. The School Day Factor Act is an investment that will support the efforts to dramatically increase this participation rate such that the 200 day school year is the norm, not an expanded calendar.

Clearly, more time alone is not sufficient to insure quality learning. By including the School Day Factor Act in the reauthorization of ESEA, it will be paired with actions designed to enhance and support quality instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch and Murray to introduce the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation, ATTAIN, Act of 2009.

This bill would amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to rename part D, Achievement through Technology and Innovation, and reauthorize it through FY2014. I am very pleased that ATTAIN is supported by the Consortium for School Networking, International Society for Technology and Education, Software and Information Industry Association, State Educational Technology Directors Association, and many other education groups.

In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students and their more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number of schools that are failing to meet the performance criteria set out in the No Child Left Behind Act.

The bill I am introducing represents a critical step forward in advancing learning technologies for millions of students across the country. Many schools lack the resources necessary for the 21st century classroom and to meet the needs and expectations of today's students. Furthermore, technology and e-learning in our schools are a must if we are to meet our Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education needs and to provide students with the skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century knowledge-based, global economy.

By authorizing the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act, EETT, as part of NCLB, Congress recognized that Federal leadership and investment is needed to serve as a catalyst for State and local education initiatives aimed at school innovation and improved student achievement. EETT has shown to be effective, particularly in my home State of New Mexico. As you know, many schools often do not have access to learning resources that enable their students to gain an academic background with the technological skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college or the modern workplace. Through EETT, programs such as the Online Teaching and Learning Opportunities Year 2, have become bright spots of opportunity in some of our Nation's most isolated communities and have brought technical training, professional development and advanced technology resources to teachers and students. Notwithstanding this record of success, it is critical that states such as New Mexico have the opportunity to further advance the use of learning technologies to deliver innovative instruction and curriculum.

To this end, the ATTAIN Act has three main objectives. First, to ensure that through technology every student has access to individualized, rigorous, and relevant learning to meet the goals of NCLB and to prepare all students for the 21st century. Second, to build upon and increase the use of evidence-based and innovative systemic school redesign that centers around technology. And finally, to provide meaningful professional development around technology that leads to changes in teaching and curriculum and improves student technology literacy.

The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their educational experience. I want to thank Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch, and Murray for their leadership and commitment to improving education in this country. They remain tireless advocates for our Nation's students, and I am pleased to be working with them on this legislation as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act.

This legislation is an integral step in advancing State and local learning technologies for millions of students across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to further expand the home buyer tax credit.

A robust home buyer tax credit will spur consumer demand and help to stop the fall in home values, which continues to affect millions of Americans. This decline is destroying the savings and net worth of Americans, whose homes are their most valuable asset. Many now have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 created a tax credit for first-time home buyers of $7,500 through June of 2009. However, taxpayers were required to repay the tax credit in equal installments over 15 years, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. The 2009 Stimulus bill waived the repayment requirement for purchases made in 2009, increased the value of the credit to $8,000, and extended eligibility for purchases made through November of 2009.

Further improvements are necessary, in my judgment, to bring about a recovery in the housing market that will ultimately contribute to the turnaround of the broader economy. First, this bill would amend the Stimulus bill and raise the value to $15,000, or 10 percent of the value of the home, whichever is less.

Second, this bill would make the home buyer tax credit available to any individual who purchases a home, not just first-time home buyers. Doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market.

Finally, this bill would remove the income eligibility threshold. Again, doing so would stimulate demand for the entire range of homes on the market. Currently, the credit is reduced for individuals with modified adjusted gross income, AGI, of more than $75,000, $150,000 for joint filers, and is zero for those individuals with modified AGI in excess of $95,000, $170,000 for joint filers.

The need for a robust home buyer tax credit is clear. According to the National Association of Realtors, pending home sales hit a record low in January 2009. The Pending Home Sales Index, which measures the number of sales contracts signed each month, fell 7.7 percent to 80.4, the lowest mark since 2001 when tracking began.

At the same time, the housing affordability index rose 13.6 percentage points to a record high of 166.8. A value of 100 means that a family with the country's median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The higher the index, the better housing affordability is for buyers.

These two figures, taken together, demonstrate that a robust home buyer tax credit is needed to spur demand from Americans that are hesitant to buy homes for fear that prices will not stabilize.

Recent reports indicate a 13-month supply of unsold new homes, compared with a 4-month supply under more normal circumstances. Add to that a continually increasing number of foreclosed homes. According to the RealtyTrac 2008 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report, a total of 3.2 million foreclosure filings--default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions--were reported on 2.3 million U.S. properties during 2008, an 81 percent increase in total properties from 2007 and a 225 percent increase in total properties from 2006.

Jobs across all industries have been lost as a result of the housing crisis. According to a March 2, 2009, op-ed in the Washington Post by Robert J. Samuelson, ``Since late 2007, housing-related jobs-- carpenters, real estate agents, appraisers--have dropped by 1 million, a quarter of all lost jobs.''

I applaud the efforts of Senator Johnny Isakson, who has been the leader on this issue in the Senate. I cosponsored his legislation in the 110th Congress to create a home buyer tax credit. In the 111th Congress, I supported his amendment to the Stimulus bill to make improvements to the credit and I have decided to join him as a cosponsor of S. 253, which seeks to make further improvements.

The bill I am introducing is different from S. 253 in three main ways. First, my bill would improve the home buyer credit using the 2009 Stimulus bill as a starting point. Second, my bill would increase the value of the credit to $15,000, or 10 percent of the home value, whichever is less, whereas S. 253 would increase the credit amount to 10 percent of the home price capped at 3.5 percent of Federal Housing Administration loan limits. These limits are geographically dependent and would yield a credit ranging between approximately $10,000 and $22,000. Finally, my bill would remove income limitations on the credit, whereas S. 253 limits the credit for individuals earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 in the case of a joint return.

I believe it is important for both bills to be pending so that additional ideas can be debated. To that end, I look forward to working with Senator Isakson to build consensus and support for further improvements. As long as forecasts predict that home prices are falling and that the economy will remain weak, a large fraction of potential homebuyers may choose to remain on the sidelines without a robust tax credit in place.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, or the legislation introduced by Senator Isakson, to make further improvements to the home buyer tax credit.

Mr. President, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings pouring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 582 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany them, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to the 2008 annual report to Congress, released on January 7, 2009 by the National Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS, U.S. taxpayers and businesses spend about 7.6 billion hours a year complying with the filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. This figure does not include the millions of additional hours that taxpayers must spend when they are required to respond to an IRS notice or audit. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill over 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 million words in 2005. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words.

The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the IRS's most available data, the average time burden for all taxpayers filing a 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ in 2006 was 26.4 hours, with an average cost of $207 per return. Taxpayers filing 1040 forms had an average burden of approximately 34 hours. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 1999 Form 1040 was estimated to take 12 hours and 51 minutes to complete. Thus, the time it now takes to fill out these tax forms has more than doubled over an eight year period.

It is no wonder that more than 80 percent of individual taxpayers pay transaction fees to help file tax returns. Well over half of all taxpayers, 61 percent according to a recent survey, now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only about 35 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too

complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk. Since the beginning of 2001, there have been more than 3,250 changes to the tax code, an average of more than one a day, including more than 500 changes in 2008 alone. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--isn't there a better way?

My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness, and economic growth.

My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the 7.1 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard- sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or for more time with their families, instead of pouring over tax tables, schedules, and regulations.

My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair, and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:

A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 7.6 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 million words currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of approximately 87,000 employees, creating opportunities to put their expertise to use elsewhere in the government or in private industry.

Economists estimate a growth due to a flat tax of over $2 trillion in national wealth over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.

Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion.

Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.

Americans would be able to save or invest the $265 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud. Currently, the IRS is estimating a tax gap of $300 billion a year.

Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $10 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service.

The most dramatic way to illustrate the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10- line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out..

This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2006 tax year, the standard deduction is $5,150 for a single taxpayer, $7,550 for a head of household and $10,300 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,300. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $23,500--that is personal exemptions of $13,200 and a standard deduction of $10,300. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $30,000, and would pay tax on income over that amount.

The tax loopholes enable write-offs of some $393 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the Tax Code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what they owe.

This bill is modeled after a proposal organized and written by two very distinguished law professors from Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, Senate bill 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced my legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I re-reintroduced the bill on April 15, 1999, Tax Day, in a bill denominated as S. 822. I then introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill; the amendment was not adopted. During the 108th Congress, I introduced my flat tax legislation once again on April 11, 2003. On May 14, 2003, I offered an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation legislation urging the Senate to hold hearings and consider legislation providing for a flat tax; this amendment passed by a vote of 70 to 30 on May 15, 2003. I then testified on this issue at a subsequent hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee on November 5, 2003. On April 15, 2005 and again on April 10, 2007, I again reintroduced my flat tax legislation in a bill denominated as S. 812 and S. 1081 respectively.

Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.''

The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible.

In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19 percent rate, is

based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts.

Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my flat tax postcard, a variety of specific cases that illustrate the fairness and simplicity of this flat tax, and an example flat tax table be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2009. This bill provides economic empowerment and educational opportunities for working families by helping bank the unbanked and increasing access to financial literacy opportunities. It will also encourage the use of mainstream financial institutions for working families that need small loans. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Schumer, Inouye, and Lieberman.

Too many Americans lack basic financial literacy. Americans of all ages and backgrounds face increasingly complex financial decisions as members of the nation's workforce, managers of their families' resources, and voting citizens. Many find these decisions confusing and frustrating because they lack the tools necessary that would enable them to make wise, personal choices about their finances.

Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance, individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances, effectively evaluate credit opportunities, successfully invest for long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace, or be able to cope with difficult financial situations. Unfortunately, today too many working families are struggling as they are confronted with increases in energy and food costs or the loss of a job.

We must work toward improving education, consumer protections, and empowering individuals and families through economic and financial literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses, and communities. The bill that I am introducing today would help to educate, empower and protect consumers.

Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. Among those families who make up the bottom 20 percent of earners, one in four does not have a transaction account according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Indeed, the unbanked are often among the most vulnerable. More than 15 percent of families headed by a single parent are unbanked. The unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses making it difficult for these individuals to better their finances.

My bill authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income unbanked individuals establish bank or credit union accounts. Providing access to a bank or credit union account can empower families with tremendous financial opportunities. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers with alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and high cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services.

Low- and moderate-income individuals are often challenged with a number of barriers that limit their ability to open and maintain accounts. Regular checking accounts may be too costly for some consumers unable to maintain minimum balances or unable to afford monthly fees. Poor credit histories may also hinder their ability to open accounts. By providing Federal resources for product development, administration, outreach, and financial education, banks and credit unions will be better able to reach out and bank the unbanked.

The second grant program authorized by my legislation provides consumers with a lower cost, short term alternative to payday loans. More needs to be done to encourage mainstream financial service providers to develop affordable small loan products. My legislation will help support the development of affordable credit products at bank and credit unions. Working families would be better off by going to their credit unions and banks, mainstream financial services providers, than payday loan shops. Payday loans are cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loans often have triple digit interest rates that range from 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.

There is a great need for working families to have access to affordable small loans. My legislation would encourage banks and credit unions to develop payday loan alternatives. Consumers who apply for these loans would be provided with financial literacy and educational opportunities. Loans extended to consumers under the grant would be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's, Loan Interest Rates. Several credit unions have developed similar products.

I will work to enact this legislation so vital to empowering our citizens. In our current, modern, complex economy, not having a bank or credit union

account severely hinders the ability of families to improve their financial condition or help them navigate difficult financial circumstances. Instead of borrowing money from payday lenders at outrageous fees, we need to encourage people to utilize their credit unions and banks for affordable small loans. Banks and credit unions have the ability to make the lives of working families better by helping them save,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a program within the Department of Veterans Affairs for family caregivers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Burr, the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Tester, Senator Burns, and Senator Rockefeller, former Chairman of the Committee.

Some veterans returning from the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as previous conflicts, suffer from disabilities that prevent them from being fully independent. This is a sad fact of war. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide for several improvements in health care for veterans by supporting the family members who care for them.

The challenges faced by family caregivers are well known to us. We have been working on this issue for nearly two years. Provisions that then-Senator Clinton included in a health care omnibus bill reported by the Committee last Congress would have provided for pilot programs to serve caregivers. We have since learned much more about the role family members play in caring for injured veterans, and the needs of family caregivers. I think we are now beyond the scope of that original pilot program and I believe that a full-fledged permanent program is needed in VA.

First, it is well known that the involvement of family members in the provision of health care dramatically improves speed and success of recovery. This bill will give family members the resources needed to be involved in the care for their loved one. Second, many disabled veterans are not able to complete some tasks of daily living on their own, but do not require care in an institution. Allowing a veteran to remain in the home, while having family members meet the veteran's needs, will vastly improve quality of life for the veteran.

Caregivers, who are members of a veteran's family, often put their lives on hold in order to provide care for the injured or disabled veteran at home. In some instances, these caregivers are unable to maintain regular jobs because of the time consumed in providing sufficient care to the veteran. This has the compound effect of decreasing household income, and possibly preventing the caregiver from keeping health insurance. This legislation would help alleviate these problems so as to allow the caregiver to focus entirely on caring for the veteran.

This bill includes provisions for training and certifying family caregivers or personal care attendants. It would provide for mental health counseling, health care eligibility, a living stipend, and other critical services to support these caregivers. Additionally, this bill would make improvements to the services VA provides to family members who must travel to take the veteran to a VA facility to receive treatment.

I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this much needed legislation. I especially thank Senators Burr and Rockefeller for cosponsoring this bill. I would also like to thank the dedicated members of the Wounded Warrior Project and Paralyzed Veterans of America for their tireless efforts in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator Voinovich as we introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 to formalize Federal Executive Boards, FEBs, in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

President Kennedy issued a Directive in 1961 creating FEBs to allow the heads of Federal agencies outside of Washington, DC to come together to address local issues in their Federal communities. There are now 28 Boards in 20 States, including Hawaii. Because they have never been authorized in legislation, FEBs have no institutionalized structure; each has its own operating structure. Some have an executive director, while some have no permanent staff at all. They also do not receive specific appropriations. As a result, FEBs must cobble together voluntary funding from participating agencies.

The Office of Personnel Management oversees the mission and activities of FEBs. Part of FEBs' mission is to offer agencies outside of Washington, DC an opportunity to share information, collaborate to address shared concerns, discuss management and administrative challenges, and come together as a Federal community. Each Board sets its own specific priorities and activities based on local concerns and the leadership in a given area.

Additionally, FEBs' mission is to play a critical support role in coordinating emergency preparedness and response efforts for a given area. The Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board regularly hosts and participates in preparedness exercises in Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. When the Interstate 35 West Bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1, 2007, the Executive Director of the Minnesota FEB helped disseminate critical information to over 100 Federal agencies and coordinate with the State and local emergency response network. FEBs have shared information with each other to assist in preparing for large events as well. For example, the Boston FEB used their experience with the Democratic National Convention in 2004 to help the Denver and Minnesota FEBs prepare for the National Party Conventions in 2008.

At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on September 28, 2007, which I chaired, it was clear that FEBs lack of formal structure hinders their critical support role in emergency preparedness and response. At that hearing, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, testified that FEBs have no clear role in national emergency planning, no framework to operate, no accountability in performing their duties, and no funding to carry out their missions. Additionally, FEB Executive Directors from around the country testified about the frustrations of operating without stable funding or a clear structure.

Since the hearing, FEBs have been included in FEMA's National Response Framework, and OPM and FEMA have signed a memorandum of understanding, MOU, giving FEBs a formal role in emergency preparedness and response. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 would implement other recommendations made by GAO and the representatives from FEBs at the 2007 hearing. More specifically, the bill would formalize the role of Federal Executive Boards, which would include interagency collaboration and Federal agency emergency preparedness and response outside of Washington, DC; establish a process for establishing new FEBs; require OPM to establish performance standards for

FEBs; specify a funding formula, which OPM will administer, for FEBs based on the number of employees in a Federal agency in a given area; and authorize staffing levels for each FEB to have at least an Executive Director and one support staff member.

Eighty-five percent of the Federal workforce is employed outside of the Washington, DC area. We spend billions of dollars preparing the National Capital Region for emergencies, but we must focus more on Federal Government agency emergency preparedness and response outside of the Washington area. This legislation will address that pressing need. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long

been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution.

The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''

This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.

In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.

My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''

My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.

Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.

In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.

Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting.

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to make various improvements to VA rural health care. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Max Baucus and Mark Begich. The legislation is designed to bring more doctors into small communities; promote the use of volunteer counselors to help with mental health issues; expand telemedicine services; and create incentives for VA's community partners to provide high quality services to veterans.

As the drawdown of forces in Iraq begins, VA must be prepared to meet the health care needs of veterans upon their return.

Many veterans live in small towns and communities. This includes a large number of Guard members and Reservists who have served in such an integral role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the Guard and Reserve face challenges that are different than those faced by their active duty counterparts, who return to military bases with the support of their unit and programs geared toward re-acclimating them to life outside of the combat zone. When members of the Guard or Reserves return home, they often are isolated from their units, leaving them to reintegrate back into their communities without a strong VA or DoD presence or support system.

When health care is needed, a rural community may not have providers who offer mental health services, such as group counseling, and may not be familiar with treating combat-related disorders.

I believe strongly that there is an obligation to care for all veterans in need, regardless of where they live. We must ensure that adequate resources are available to serve those who live in rural communities, and that VA works closely with local health care providers to help meet the need for care. It is critical that VA reach out to veterans living in rural communities so that they receive the care they need. Every resource must be united in the effort to care for wounded warriors, whether in a community hospital or VA clinic. When there is no VA presence in a community, VA may need to pay community providers for the reasonable costs of care.

Last month, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on health care for veterans in rural areas. We heard from the chief executive officer of a community hospital, from a former director of a rural health clinic, and from outreach organizations who work to bridge the gap between VA and community health care systems. These witnesses testified about how hard it is for veterans who live in rural areas to find health care in the communities where they live, and about how difficult it is for community hospitals and clinics to provide quality services with the limited resources available to them.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff also conducted an oversight visit to Hawaii and saw firsthand the needs of veterans living in rural communities on the neighbor islands. Many of those veterans find it hard to access VA health care because of travel restrictions and a shortage of services in their communities. Committee staff found that technology was not being used to bridge this gap; indeed, the use of telemedicine is actually declining in Hawaii.

The legislation we are introducing today would help address the needs of veterans living in rural communities in a number of ways.

First, the bill would bring more doctors to targeted communities by repaying their student loans while they work for VA. Currently, VA's loan repayment program is capped at an amount that is less than \1/3\ the average cost of medical school. This bill would remove the cap, allowing VA to offer full loan repayment so as to provide a much more effective recruitment tool.

In addition, this bill would encourage VA and HHS to use the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program to recruit physicians for VA facilities located in underserved areas. The National Health Service Corps pays for medical school up front in exchange for a doctor's agreement to work in an underserved area after graduation.

To address the shortage of mental health providers in many communities, this legislation would also allow VA to shorten the credentialing and privileging process for licensed volunteer counselors who could provide mental health services to our veterans.

The legislation would also create a pilot program to place VA doctors in community hospitals so as to enable them to provide more continuous care for veterans. Under this pilot, VA doctors working in communities without a VA hospital would be able to follow their patients when admitted to the local hospital. Participating VA doctors would earn additional compensation for assuming these responsibilities, thereby creating financial incentives for doctors to stay within VA. Since many non-VA hospitals do not have mental health providers or other providers experienced in the treatment of conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder that disproportionately affect veterans, this would also bring needed expertise into other care communities.

This bill would also allow VA to monitor the quality of care provided in non-VA facilities. Currently, there is no way for VA to do such quality assurance in a systematic way. This bill would encourage VA's community partners to participate in quality programs like peer review, or to seek accreditation by an outside organization.

This bill also would bring new technologies to rural communities. By modifying VA's internal mechanism for distributing funds, the legislation would provide incentives for VA hospitals and clinics to use telehealth technologies. VA currently bases the distribution of funds to its facilities on workload and does not currently count all telehealth visits in a facility's workload. By requiring VA to give hospitals and clinics credit for telehealth

visits, this bill will promote the natural expansion of these services to our veterans.

Finally, for those veterans who must travel by air to obtain their health care--because of their health status, geography or other barriers--this bill would allow VA to pay beneficiary travel benefits for airfare to those veterans who cannot afford it. In recognition of the cost of airfare, a different income eligibility standard from that used for ground transportation would be used in connection with reimbursement of the costs of air travel.

I urge our colleagues to work with me and the other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to improve access to health care for veterans who live in rural areas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act to help agencies fix the broken recruitment and hiring process in the Federal Government. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Voinovich in this effort.

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the U.S., but every day talented people interested in Federal service walk away because the hiring process is longer and more complicated than that of other employers. Too many Federal agencies have built entry barriers for new workers, done too little to recruit the right candidates, and invented an evaluation process that discourages qualified candidates.

In the private sector, many employers post job vacancies through a variety of online and other venues and require only a resume and cover letter to apply. Applying to the federal government should be similarly accessible and easy. However, agencies often require substantial essays and other documentation at the initial application stage.

Agencies need to adapt, just as the private sector has, to take advantage of modern technology to boost recruitment efforts and streamline the hiring process to make it more user friendly. Inexpensive outlets such as social networking sites offer agencies an opportunity to expand their profile and post job opportunities without emptying their wallets. It is easier than it was in the past to submit and track application materials during the application process. Agencies should accept candidate-friendly applications such as resumes and cover letters for the initial application and ask for additional information only as needed. Likewise, technology makes it possible to provide automated information to candidates, so candidates should receive timely and informative feedback about the application process.

Additionally, more employees with advanced and technical skills are needed in the modern federal workforce, so more pipelines into colleges and technical schools need to be developed to recruit candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, where witnesses testified to the need for reforms in the hiring process. The Government Accountability Office testified to the broad failures of agencies to address such problems as passive recruitment strategies, unclear job vacancy announcements, and imprecise candidate assessment tools. Witnesses testified that young people are greatly interested in Federal Government service, but agencies need to meet them where they are. Developing broader recruitment strategies, using online resources and streamlining the hiring process are essential to attracting the next generation of Federal employees.

In response to the hearing, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, developed the End-to-End Hiring Roadmap initiative that provides agencies a streamlined 80-day model from the time a manager seeks to fill a position to the time an offer is made. This initiative addresses strategic workforce planning, targeted recruitment, clear job announcements, and hiring flexibilities. The initiative also advocates accepting resumes and cover letters over the lengthy and onerous knowledge, skills, and abilities essays, KSAs, required for many Federal jobs.

This initiative includes many positive steps, but many agencies are not adopting them. OPM does not have the authority to require agencies to do so. Congress must step in.

The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act requires agencies to develop strategic workforce plans, including hiring projections and critical skills gaps analyses of the workforce; post brief, clear job announcements in plain writing; Allow submission of resumes and cover letters and no longer require KSAs; provide timely notification to applicants of the status of their application; take no more than 80 days from the time a manager decides to fill a vacancy to the time an offer is made; keep an inventory of all applicants who elect to be considered for other Federal vacancies; and measure the effectiveness of hiring efforts and reforms.

Agencies must make reforming the recruitment and hiring process a top priority, and this bill furthers the discussion. The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act will require agencies to abandon their stale recruitment and hiring processes and develop streamlined hiring practices that attract high-quality candidates. The future of the Federal workforce is depending on it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.