National Guard and Reserve Soft Landing Reintegration Act

Mr. President, among the most hopeful occurrences in rural America is when someone is able to get started in farming or ranching and go on to build a successful operation. Typically, the beginning farmer or rancher is continuing an established family farm or ranch, although increasingly he or she is taking on the challenge of starting and growing an entirely new operation.

Because farming and ranching families are so vital to rural communities and our Nation as a whole, there has been a great deal of concern for decades as America's agricultural producers have grown older and retired, as farm numbers fell, and as men and women who had a great desire to become the next generation of farmers and ranchers were unable to find the opportunities and resources to do so.

Across America, we are fortunate to have many families and individuals who possess the ability, motivation, and dedication to start or continue a farm or ranch and build a rewarding life in agriculture. Our Nation needs more beginning farmers and ranchers across all types of operations--including commercial-scale crop and animal agriculture systems, organic agriculture, growing for local food systems and farmers markets, and even farming in urban and suburban areas. We need more beginning farmers and ranchers to secure critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber for the future. We need them as stewards to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources. We need more new farming and ranching families as contributing members of healthy and vibrant local communities.

Aspiring and beginning farmers and ranchers confront tremendous challenges, yet there are some hopeful signs. According to the Census of Agriculture, the number of farms in the United States increased four percent between 2002 and 2007. The new farms tended to be smaller, have lower sales, and rely more on off-farm income sources. New farmers are also more diverse, with significant increases between 2002 and 2007 in the number of farm operators who are women, Hispanic, American Indian, African-American, and Asian-American.

We know from experience that carefully designed programs can very effectively help beginning farmers and ranchers apply their talents and efforts, assemble the necessary resources, capitalize upon opportunities, and succeed. I am proud that in the two farm bills, in 2002 and 2008, that we enacted while I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, we adopted a number of initiatives to strengthen and improve programs at the Department of Agriculture that assist beginning farmers and ranchers.

The legislation I am introducing today, joined by a number of my colleagues, is crafted to extend, improve, and strengthen beginning farmer and rancher programs and initiatives that we adopted in the most recent two farm bills and in earlier farm bills and other legislation. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 will build upon the successful record of the earlier legislation and its implementation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with a variety of public and private institutions and organizations.

Let me emphasize that the beginning farmer and rancher initiatives in the legislation we are introducing today, and the programs now being carried out by USDA, are not designed or intended to guarantee the success of any beginning farmer or rancher or to give anyone something for nothing. All they do is to offer a helping hand, a better opportunity, to women and men who make the effort and apply themselves, who are willing to learn and to do the necessary work to achieve their goals and succeed in farming and ranching.

A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The

bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $25 million in each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It creates a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support at least 15 State individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and applying conservation practices.

To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices in their operations, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. For example, the legislation expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts and is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Other provisions increase the share of funds and enrollment dedicated to beginning farmers and ranchers in the Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, strengthen help to beginning farmers and ranchers through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, promote their use of whole-farm conservation planning, and boost help to them through conservation loans and cost-share payments.

Other features of the bill are designed to strengthen revenue insurance available to beginning farmers and ranchers through USDA's Risk Management Agency, including increased funding to help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. To strengthen USDA's attention to helping beginning farmers and ranchers, the legislation creates coordinators in key USDA agency offices in each State. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers.

In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, today it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act Reauthorization of 2011--also known as the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011--with a bipartisan group of Senators that includes Senators Burr, Casey, Enzi, Mikulski, Alexander, Hagan, Collins, Lieberman, and Roberts. This reauthorization builds on a record of bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our ability to respond to and prepare for medical and public health emergencies over the past decade.

Based on lessons learned since the original PAHPA legislation was signed into law in 2006, this reauthorization continues to support the progress made by the Federal Government and its State and local partners to protect its citizens during public health and medical emergencies. It also proposes a number of targeted changes that will improve our ability to address a variety of threats to the public health of our Nation.

Such threats are diverse in origin and include exposure to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. Sometimes these threats occur naturally--the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, for example--or they can be the result of malicious intent--such as the deliberate release of anthrax in 2001. A recent and very challenging example is the radiation leak that occurred at the nuclear plant damaged by Japan's massive earthquake.

It is not just known threats that place the health and well-being of Americans at risk; there are just as many emerging or unknown threats against which protection is critical. Because the impact of these threats could be catastrophic, it is imperative that we continue to strengthen our Nation's ability to adequately prepare for a public health emergency.

Building our Nation's response capacity requires close collaboration among Federal, State and local governments; hospitals and health care providers; businesses; schools; indeed, all Americans. I have long taken the Federal Government's role in being prepared for a public health emergency public health preparedness as it is calledvery seriously.

We have made tremendous progress in preparedness during the last decade, but this reauthorization provides additional flexibility to State and local governments to more efficiently use Federal resources in preparing for public health emergencies. For example, this bill reauthorizes the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Grant Program, which provides critical resources to State and local public health agencies, and streamlines requirements making it easier for them to meet program requirements and target resources.

Our ability to be prepared for a public health emergency also depends on the advanced development and procurement of medical countermeasures. These are the vaccines, therapies, and diagnostics needed to prevent or respond to a bioterrorism event or other public health emergency. In an effort to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures, we need to continue to support innovative research into promising new products and ensure that products are readily available during a time of emergency. We also need to address the scientific challenges of identifying safe and effective medical countermeasures when human trials are not available or ethical.

This bill addresses a number of these concerns and provides greater certainty for biotech companies that operate in this space and continues to build on partnerships between the private sector and the Federal Government to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures to prepare for or respond to a public health emergency.

Underlying all of our preparedness activities is the issue of how we ensure that our most vulnerable citizens will be protected should disaster strike. We know that many populations--including individuals with disabilities, seniors, and children--may have unique needs that we have the responsibility to address during a public health emergency. In the past, when faced with catastrophic events, we have too often seen such needs go unmet. Now we must use lessons learned to ensure more efficient, effective, and equitable responses in the future.

Something that I am especially proud of is that the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011 requires that these individuals are an integrated part of our preparedness efforts. This means that we continue to address the unique needs of at-risk populations--such providing information in a way that it is understandable to all Americans, including those with cognitive limitations--and plan for these unique needs when it comes to drafting preparedness plans and conducting preparedness drills and exercises. This bill truly focuses on addressing the need of our most vulnerable citizens by considering them as critical part of our overall preparedness planning--not as an afterthought.

This bill represents a true bipartisan effort and had the support of a number of important stakeholders. For example, we have already received the endorsements of the Alliance for Biosecurity, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Dental Association. In the coming days and weeks, we expect many more endorsements. Because the bill is so critical to our ability to prepare for and respond to public health and medical emergencies, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the introduction of important bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 and the BioShield Special Reserve Fund. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Enzi, and Casey. I thank them for their efforts and leadership on this important legislation. It

is clear that my colleagues share my dedication to strengthening and enhancing our Nation's ability to be prepared for and respond to all hazards that may confront us.

As we introduce legislation to strengthen and improve our Nation's medical and public health preparedness and response programs, it is appropriate to reflect on the progress we have made to date, the seriousness of the threats facing our Nation, and the work that remains to be done if we are going to be prepared to respond to the full range of threats, whether naturally occurring, like an influenza pandemic, or a deliberate bioterrorism attack.

During the 109th Congress, I chaired the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness. Building on the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and September 11, Congress took a hard look at how we could better prepare and respond to public health and medical emergencies. The Subcommittee held multiple public hearings, roundtables, and meetings, and Congress received significant input from public health officials, medical experts, emergency managers, biotechnology companies, and stakeholders from across our nation. These actions culminated with the passage of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006.

Through the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, Congress empowered the Department of Health and Human Services with the tools it needs to protect the American people more effectively and efficiently in response to a public health emergency. This law established the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR, to unify the Department's preparedness and response programs and mission and answer the critical question of ``who is in charge?'' when it comes to medical and public health preparedness and response. Since its inception, ASPR has carried out significant preparedness and response planning and coordinated response efforts with federal, State, and local public health partners.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 also established the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, to speed up the development of countermeasures--such as vaccines or treatments--to protect Americans against a potential chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorist attack, or other public health emergency, such as a pandemic influenza. PAHPA also gave BARDA the ability to make mile-stone based payments through the BioShield Special Reserve Fund--a $5.6 billion medical countermeasure procurement fund established by Congress in 2004 to provide assurances of the federal government's commitment to purchasing medical countermeasures if companies embarked on years long development of these life-saving products. Even without full funding, BARDA has been able to identify promising countermeasures and support the critical advanced research and development necessary for making these products available to the American people. Thanks to BARDA and the investment we have made over the last few years, our nation was much better positioned to quickly respond to the H1N1 pandemic influenza two years ago.

I am very proud to have authored this important bipartisan law five years ago and I am proud to have again joined with Senators Harkin, Enzi, and Casey in a bipartisan manner to tackle the serious challenges that remain in ensuring our nation is prepared to respond to all- hazards. In recent weeks, Congress has been reminded of the urgency of our work in this area. Last month, the WMD Center published a comprehensive Bio-response Report Card evaluating our nation's preparedness against potential bioterror attacks. This report noted that while we have made progress, the U.S. Government received ``Ds'' and ``Fs'' in certain areas associated with responding to large-scale biological attacks that terrorists like Al- Qaida or others may seek to perpetuate against us. This report and recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office calling for improvements to our nation's medical countermeasure programs are a serious wake-up call that cannot go unaddressed. The American people expect the President and Congress to do all we can to prevent an attack, and in the event of an attack, be prepared to respond in order to save lives. When it comes to protecting the American people, failing grades are unacceptable.

Our work on this important legislation has been guided by sound principles. First and foremost any improvements to existing programs and authorities must be targeted and strategic and based on the lessons we have learned over the past five years, including the H1H1 pandemic and disasters at home and abroad. We must ensure the continuity of critical medical and public health preparedness authorities and programs, including the BioShield Special Reserve Fund. Given the significant fiscal challenges facing our nation, we must also ensure that we are maximizing the taxpayer resources supporting this critical preparedness mission, as well as ensuring appropriate transparency and accountability for these resources and programs. Finally, we must ensure a robust medical countermeasure enterprise, from the research bench to the points where patients receive care, including by ensuring that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulatory tools and pathways reflect modern-day threats.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act Reauthorization of 2011 would strengthen and enhance our nation's medical and public health preparedness and response programs and go a long way in addressing many of the short-comings and concerns raised by GAO and the WMD Center, as well as other stakeholders. Our legislation provides the ASPR with enhanced policy oversight and coordination of medical and public health preparedness and response programs to further unify our response in the event of a public health emergency. Our legislation also ensures an appropriate emphasis on chemical, radiological, biological, and nuclear threats as part of an all-hazards approach to our National Health Security Strategy. Our legislation ensures that an emphasis on strategic initiatives to advance medical countermeasures and community resiliency are incorporated into the National Preparedness Goals, as well as the importance of considering the unique needs and considerations for individuals at-risk in the event of a public health emergency.

Our legislation would reauthorize the National Disaster Medical System, the volunteer Medical Reserve Corps, the Emergency System for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals, the Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Cooperative Agreement Programs, and the Strategic National Stockpile. Targeted flexibility under our bill will help our State and local partners optimize community resiliency at the local level. By reauthorizing the BioShield Special Reserve Fund, our bill sends the clear signal that the U.S. Government remains committed to purchasing medical countermeasures.

The critical role that FDA plays in our medical countermeasure enterprise has become clear over the past five years and our legislation strengthens this enterprise by making targeted improvements to FDA's role in this important endeavor. For example, our bill allows the Secretary to make medical countermeasures under review by the FDA available in limited circumstances based on either a declared emergency or an identified threat, and requires the material threat posed by the agent of agents for which a product under review is intended is considered when reviewing medical countermeasures for approval, clearance, or licensure. We will stretch taxpayer dollars even further by allowing FDA to extend the shelf life of products stockpiled in the Strategic National Stockpile. Our legislation also charges FDA with promoting medical countermeasure expertise and developing regulatory science tools to advance the review, approval, clearance, and licensure of these products. By enhancing the scientific exchange between FDA and medical countermeasure stakeholders, FDA will not only be identifying problems, but an active partner in solving them to ensure our nation has the medical countermeasures necessary to protect the American people. Medical and public health preparedness and response programs, including the availability of medical countermeasures, are a matter of national security and our bill will ensure the appropriate, senior- level national security focus on these issues.

In addition to reauthorizing PAHPA, I am pleased to also introduce the Medical Surge Capacity Act, critical legislation that I hope we can include in the final version of PAHPA reauthorization. I thank Senators Harkin, Enzi, and Casey for working with me on this important bipartisan legislation that makes strategic improvements to current law to enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to target and issue waivers under Section 1135 of the Social Security Act in as timely a manner as possible based on the circumstances of an emergency. This legislation authorizes HHS to implement waivers as soon as either a public health or national emergency is declared, and enables the Secretary to institute 1135 waivers in ``host areas'' outside of a declared disaster area, but into which patients are being evacuated to receive care.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and the administration to do the important work of reauthorizing PAHPA and BioShield in order to ensure our nation is as prepared as possible in the event of the unthinkable, whether natural, or man-made.

Mr. President, never in our Nation's history has the American military relied more on National Guard and Reserve servicemembers than it has in the last 10 years.

More than 800,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to active duty service since 9/11, many of them serving two, three, and four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

Our military does an exceptional job of preparing these guardsmen and reservists for combat, but we do far too little to prepare them for transition back to civilian life.

Our guardsmen need a transition from the trauma of combat to the serenity of home in Oregon and throughout our Nation. But instead our guardsmen and reservists are sent back to their community with little or no time to readjust. In a matter of a few days these guardsmen go from holding a gun in the chaos of a combat zone to holding their children in the serenity of their own home. That has to be a difficult transition.

Unlike most active-duty troops who receive a soft landing through a number of carefully monitored reintegration programs and other support services provided on an active-duty base, returning guardsmen lack the support system of a large base.

While active-duty soldiers come home to military bases and the jobs and support systems that they provide, returning Guard members are in many instances left to face the increasingly stark reality of transitioning to civilian life on their own.

The amount of personal and professional requirements placed on guardsmen and reservists pre- and post-deployment are mind boggling. What they need more than anything is time to wind down and tend to their lives.

Even under the best of circumstances, the road back from war is difficult and extremely stressful. Men and women who have served in harm's way experience higher rates of divorce and suicide.

Many battle the debilitating effects and stigma associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In the current struggling economy, nearly half of the guard members and reservists have no job to return to. Some find that the jobs and careers they put on hold to serve their country simply no longer exist.

To compound an unacceptable unemployment problem, Guard members and reservists are immediately taken off the military payroll once they get home.

Imagine that reality for a second. You left your home, your family and your job to serve your country in harm's way for 10 months, only to be welcomed back with no job and no

source of income to pay for your home or support your family.

If they do have a job waiting for them, to keep a steady income, Guardsmen must jump right back into the high stress of relearning their civilian job without a chance to decompress or readjust from the stress of combat.

That is what my bill would help fix.

The National Guard and Reserve Soft Landing Reintegration Act would allow returning guardsmen and reservists to take up to 45 days to decompress, reintegrate, and get their lives in order, while still being paid.

I started this program because I think that citizen-soldiers are one of the strengths of this nation. They and their families should be acknowledged for the level of sacrifices that they are making.

Addressing the post deployment-related needs of returning guardsmen is not only the moral thing to do; it is also strategically wise for our nation.

This is part of the promise our nation made to take care of our troops. They did their best of us. We should do our best for them.

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

Mr. President, today I am being joined by my colleagues Senator Bingaman and Senator Collins on the introduction of the Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 or the STORAGE 2011 Act. The purpose of the bill is to promote the deployment of energy storage technologies to make the electric grid operate more efficiently and help manage intermittent renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and other sources that vary with the time of day and the weather.

Traditionally, peak demand has been met by building more generation and transmission facilities, many of which sit idle much of the time. The Electric Power Research Institute's White Paper on storage technology observed that 25 percent of the equipment and capacity of the U.S. electric distribution system and 10 percent of the generation and transmission system is needed less than 400 hours a year. Peak generation is also often met with the least efficient, most costly power plants. Energy storage systems offer an alternative to simply building more generation and transmission to meet peak demand because they allow the current system to meet peak demands by storing less expensive off-peak power, from the most cost-efficient plants, for use during peak demand.

The growth of renewable energy from wind and solar and other intermittent renewable sources, like wave and tidal energy, raises yet another challenge for the electric grid that storage can help address. These renewable sources deliver power at times of the day or night when they might not be needed or fluctuate with the weather. Energy storage technology allows these intermittent sources to store power as it is generated and allow it to be dispatched when it is most needed and in a predictable, steady of stream of electricity no longer at the vagaries of weather conditions. And equally important, it allows this intermittent generation to more closely match demand. Instead of trying to find a place to sell power at 3:00 am in the morning when demand is down, wind farms for example would be able to sell their power at 3:00 pm in the afternoon when demand is up.

The STORAGE 2011 Act offers investment tax credits for three categories of energy storage facilities that temporarily store energy for delivery or use at a later time. The bill is technology neutral and does not pick storage technology ``winners'' and ``losers'' either in terms of the storage technology that is used or in terms of the source of the energy that is stored. The electricity can come from a wind farm or it can come for a coal or nuclear plant. Pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries, flywheels, and thermal storage are all eligible technologies as are smart-grid enabled plug-in electric vehicles.

First, the STORAGE 2011 Act provides a 20 percent investment tax credit of up to $40 million per project for storage systems connected to the electric grid and distribution system. A total of $1.5 billion in these investment credits are available for these grid connected systems. Developers would have to apply to the Treasury Department and DOE for the credits, similar to the process used for the green energy manufacturing credits the ``48C'' program. This is a 20 percent credit so that means the actual cost of the project that would be eligible for the full credit would be $200 million.

The Act also provides a 30 percent investment tax credit of up to $1 million per project to businesses for on-site storage, such as an ice- storage facility in on office building, where ice is made at night using low-cost, off-peak power and then used to help air-condition the building during the day while reducing peak demand. This is a 30 percent credit so the cost of the actual projects that would get the full credit amount would be around $3.3 million.

The Act also provides for 30 percent tax credit for homeowners for on-site storage projects to store off-peak electricity from solar panels or from the grid for later use during peak hours.

As the EPRI white paper noted ``(d)espite the large anticipated need for energy storage solutions within the electric enterprise, very few grid-integrated storage installations are in actual operation in the United States today.'' The purpose of the STORAGE 2011 Act is help jump start the deployment of these storage solutions so that renewable energy technologies can increase their economic value to the electric grid while reducing their power integration costs as well as to improve the overall efficiency of the electrical system.

I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at what storage technologies can do to help reduce the cost of electricity and improve the performance of the electric grid and renewable energy technologies. If they do, I am confident my colleagues will join Senators Bingaman and Collins in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide certain of our Nation's veterans with the ability to enforce their statutorily protected veterans' preference rights in the Federal Government.

The Veterans' Preference Act, which became law in 1944, was intended to provide a preference in hiring in the Executive Branch to returning servicemembers who acquired valuable skills during their service in the Second World War. Before signing this legislation into law, President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the great responsibility our Nation owes its veterans:

I believe that the Federal Government, functioning in its

capacity as an employer, should take the lead in assuring

those who are in the armed forces, that when they return,

special consideration will be given to them in their efforts

to obtain employment. It is absolutely impossible to take

millions of our young men out of their normal pursuits for

the purpose of fighting to preserve the Nation, and then

expect them to resume their normal activities without having

any special consideration shown them.

By 1998, it had become clear that providing veterans with a preference in hiring was an effective way to attract and retain qualified veterans in government service. However, it was apparent that veterans needed a mechanism to enforce their veterans' preference rights where an agency was not applying the law as Congress intended. Recognizing this need, Congress enacted the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, which created a mechanism

for preference eligible veterans to appeal violations of their veterans' preference rights to the Department of Labor, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Federal court. The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act also extended veterans' preference rights to reductions in force in the Federal Government.

It has come to my attention that, unfortunately, not all of our veterans have the ability to enforce their rights under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. Last year, in a case called Morse v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that preference eligible applicants and employees at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration are not covered by the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, and thus do not have the same appeal rights as most other applicants and employees in the Federal Government. The court's ruling is puzzling because applicants and employees at both of these Federal agencies have veterans' preference rights under current Federal law, but it may reflect a drafting error in the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. At a time when thousands of our servicemembers are returning home and seeking employment in the Federal Government, we must correct this unacceptable result.

Recently, our country observed the 10th anniversary of the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. Since that horrific day, more than 5 million Americans have served in our military, with more than 2 million Americans serving in warzones. As these servicemembers return home, we must be mindful of our sacred commitment to assist those who serve our country and later seek employment in the Federal Government. Specifically, we must ensure that all of our federal agencies are honoring the sacrifice made by servicemembers and their families by complying with veterans' preference laws.

Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to correct the problem recently brought to light by the Morse decision by providing preference-eligible applicants and employees at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration with rights under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation, and more fully honoring the commitment of our Nation's veterans.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address the long history of water disputes in the Klamath Basin and commend the work of the community in coming together to begin a new, collaborative era of water management in the region.

When I was first elected to the U.S. Senate, one of my first trips across Oregon included a visit to the Klamath Basin to gather information about the history of the water wars in the region and meet with the stakeholders who were working on a solution.

On my way down to the Basin I was extremely skeptical that traditional rivals could reach agreement on a written management plan. Only a few years earlier, the region was embroiled in protests and civil disobedience over sizeable fish kills and limited supplies of water for irrigation. The generational battles over water had deepened divides, often making it hard for parties to be in a room together, let alone work together.

When I arrived in Klamath Falls, therefore, I was deeply surprised to find farmers, ranchers, fishermen, Tribal leaders and conservationists working together on a comprehensive and collaborative plan that would end the ongoing water wars of the region, improve the local economy and create a stronger environment for the future. They told me they were tired of the unproductive battles of the past and of the massive amounts they were spending on lawyers rather than solutions. They thought they had some chance of finding a better path forward. This was impressive. I thought then that if they managed to get the Klamath Restoration Agreements completed and signed by all the parties, I would certainly assist them with the necessary federal legislation.

That legislation is now the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act of 2011, which I am introducing today. This bill implements both the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and moves the region forward. These agreements would provide a more stable supply of irrigation water to farmers and ranchers and would improve in-river water flows for endangered fish and the fishermen who depend on them. The agreements would enhance the national wildlife refuges that are one of the most important migratory bird habitats in the country. In addition, the agreement would, by removing four dams, turn the Klamath into a free-flowing river once again, opening miles of habitat to spawning salmon. The agreement also restores a sector of the Klamath Tribe forest and resolves a challenging fish passage issue for Pacific Power.

This agreement would create a lot of jobs. A recent analysis estimates that the agreement would create 4,000 jobs in construction and agriculture. It also estimates that with the restoration of critical salmon and steelhead habitat the commercial harvest of Chinook salmon would increase by 80 percent.

The KBRA and KHSA agreements are the result of several years of intense negotiation and compromise. They are inherently complicated. No party obtained all they desired and not everyone is satisfied that these agreements contain the best possible outcomes.

But what is absolutely clear is that it is an extraordinary accomplishment for the Klamath stakeholders to set aside their historic differences and work out this plan. They say in the West that, ``Whiskey, that's for drinking. Water, that's for fighting.'' But continuous fighting sometimes reaches the point where little is accomplished. The Klamath stakeholders are painting a different vision, in which the interests of all can be served.

The agreement is full of the bipartisan, solution-oriented spirit that can take the region forward. It is a spirit that we could use a lot more of in Washington, DC, and across the nation. I am proud to partner with the Klamath community on the future of the region.

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