Floor Statements

Mr. President, news of yesterday's tragic killings at Virginia Tech reached me piecemeal as I was traveling back to Washington.

We are still far from final answers and explanations. Even today, facts are still being confirmed, evidence is still being collected, and the impact of the tragedy is still reverberating.

Last night, the Senate formally reacted to these terrible events through a resolution of sympathy.

I rise today to personally express my sorrow and condolences to the family and friends of the victims, to the survivors, and to the Virginia Tech community at large. The magnitude of this tragedy is unimaginable. You are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you know that the hearts of millions of Americans go out to you in your time of grief.

As we come to understand more about the events that unfolded so tragically yesterday, there will be plenty of time for us to argue about policy and politics and how to distribute blame. Today we should be mourning the loss of these lives, and doing what we can to help the wounded and comfort the bereaved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a sense-of-the- Congress amendment my good friend and colleague Senator Inhofe has just submitted regarding Presidential authority over setting American foreign policy. Like all of my colleagues, I have the right to visit foreign countries in my capacity as a Member of Congress. However, the Constitution is quite clear about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of our government, and the executive branch has the exclusive authority to conduct negotiations with foreign countries.

As we all know, the Logan Act prohibits American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments without the authority of the United States. What would it mean if a Member of the House or Senate, and especially a member of the leadership, was to visit a foreign country and in discussions with their government, explicitly speak out against our Nation's foreign policy agenda? High ranking Members of Congress, I believe, are seen by foreign governments as carrying an official message of foreign policy, and if such members contradict the administration, it can be very damaging to our country politically and diplomatically.

Members of Congress have the ability to express their dissent from the floor of their respective Chambers, but under no circumstances should Members visit with foreign governments for the sole purpose of demonstrating their opposition to the administration's foreign policy. Such actions would show a sincere lack of respect for the boundaries drawn out by our Constitution, and I would hope that all Members of Congress will use good judgment when visiting with foreign governments in the future.

It is a very dangerous precedent to set if Members of Congress decide to buck the American foreign policy agenda and carry mixed messages to foreign governments, especially foreign governments hostile to our country. While I will continue to support congressional rights to travel abroad and meet with government officials, there is a responsibility that comes along with those visits, and that responsibility is to uphold and support the administration's foreign policy agenda.

For this reason I have joined my colleague Senator Inhofe in submitting this amendment. I believe it sends a clear and strong message that Members of Congress have the responsibility to defer to and support the administration on setting our Nation's foreign policy agenda, and under no circumstances should Members blatantly defy our administration for purely political gain.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for yielding. He has clearly outlined the critical nature of this legislation and its reauthorization from the original Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2005. Out in Oregon, they called it Wyden-Craig; in Idaho, they called it Craig-Wyden. But in reality, it became a lifeline for the rural communities that since 1908 had become increasingly dependent upon the revenues that flowed from our public lands. In fact, on and after May 23, 1908--and I am quoting specifically from the law--``25 per centum of all moneys received during any fiscal year from each national forest shall be paid at the end of such year by the Secretary of the Treasury to the State or the territory'' in which that money was generated for the purpose of it flowing down to, it very specifically says, ``public schools, public roads of the county or counties in which such national forests are situated.''

During the decade of the eighties, we reduced the allowable cut on our forested lands by nearly 80 percent. What Senator Wyden and I recognized at that time--we had counties in near bankruptcy--as a result of that, in 2000, we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That act expired on September 30, 2006. Whom did it impact? It impacted 700 counties, 4,400 school districts in 39 States, 8 million schoolkids, and approximately 15,000 miles of roads.

We knew that probably the formula would have to change, and the Senator from Oregon and I have worked mightily on that issue. He offered a reauthorization of the old formula. I finally offered a 1- year extension. We were able

to get the funding for a 1-year extension in the underlying vehicle, but as a result of all of that work, a new formula, a compromise, has come to be that the Senator brought to the floor as an amendment yesterday to this bill.

This is a formula which takes us out to 2012. It is a formula which stabilizes these communities. It is also a package that extends and improves the PILT, or the payment in lieu of taxes, to these large, federally dominated rural counties. It is awfully important to remember that point.

A lot of folks east of the Mississippi don't recognize sometimes that we have counties that are 80 percent and 90 percent public lands. They have no fee-simple private land base from which to fund their public needs and facilities. Yet those are the very lands on which people love to come and recreate. People from the East love to go out there and recreate. They can get hung up on a cliff somewhere and they can't get down, so local search and rescue has to get a helicopter for $10,000 and pluck them off a cliff. And who pays for it? They have enjoyed their recreational experience on the public land, but it is the county and the private funding resource that has to pay for it.

So the extension of PILT, in combination with what we are doing to sustain our rural schools and counties and their roads and bridges, is absolutely critical. It is why we created PILT years ago. It is why, when Teddy Roosevelt asked the American people to create Federal reserves, he wanted to tie the communities of interest to the Federal reserves, and out of it came the 25-percent formula that I just quoted. The extension of that is critical in western rural public land, timber, and U.S.-forest-land-dominated States. It is not, however, just in the West. Other States across the country recognize it, from the East to the South; as I said, 700 counties, 4,400 school districts, 39 States, with 8 million kids.

What does it mean in some districts? It means a third of their budget, gone. Can you raise that much revenue in a local area? Probably not. So the reality of what we are doing is important, it is very necessary, and I thank my colleague from Oregon for persisting in working with us on this formula and developing what is a new approach, probably more balanced and sustainable in the long run than what the old, original bill was, in recognition that times have changed and we need to adjust and change to them.

Let me close with this one thought--48 million kids and their education. That need has not changed, and that is why we are on the floor of the Senate today insisting that this be a part of this supplemental emergency funding program to assure the stability of those rural school districts and those rural counties.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding for a moment, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Association of Counties supporting the new version of what we call Wyden-Craig, and also the National Governors Association and its support, and a good, balanced observation of the difference between the Wyden amendment as offered and what the Senator from North Carolina is offering.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator quoted States that, by the action of their legislatures, directed full amounts to education. I understand in the Senator's State that is also true, 100 percent.

So what does the Senator's formula do to his State legislature's allocation of money? Does it cut it back, adjust it or change it?

So, in other words, the impact the Senator is advocating nationwide already happens in his State?

And States have that option, if they so choose, based on a State decision as to the importance of it rated as compared to public rural schools.

Mr. President, what is the order now?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a Warner amendment 697 at the desk, as modified. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to, as modified.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has spoken well to this issue. It is critical we vote now, that we vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon and reject the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina for micromanaging a decision that ought to be made at the local school district level when it comes to the allocation of these resources. The Federal Government and this Senate should not be telling the local school district in Nezperce, ID, or in a county such as Idaho County, ID: Here is how you are going to spend your money. We know better than the local school district or the local patrons of that district.

I hope you vote no on Burr and support the bipartisan amendment.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington.

Madam President, I am pleased that the amendment is going to be withdrawn. I will be happy to work with the chairman on this issue. I understand their concern. We should not be selling off our public land treasures for the purpose of balancing the budget. At the same time, if you sell a surplus vacant piece of property, should it not go in and be counted as revenue of our Government if it was once an asset? I think the answer is yes.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on veterans funding in this budget resolution. The Democrats have put forward a resolution that proposes to increase veterans discretionary spending by 18 percent--this is on top of a 12 percent increase that was included in last month's joint funding resolution. I have also heard that billions more will be proposed for veterans in the war supplemental.

Spending proposals of this magnitude in any area of Government should rightfully raise a few eyebrows and be met with a healthy level of scrutiny. Veterans programs are no exception. Taxpayers will continue to support higher veterans expenditures only to the extent we can assure them that those expenditures are absolutely necessary, will not be wastefully spent, and will meet our highest priorities. The Budget Committee chairman stated as much in his opening remarks on Tuesday.

Let me be clear. I am absolutely committed to providing the highest quality of care to our veterans. I have supported a 70 percent increase in VA medical care since President Bush took office. I have spoken frequently about not sparing any expense when it comes to getting the highest quality of care to our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and veterans with disabilities. I have even introduced legislation that allows all veterans with service-connected disabilities to seek care outside of the VA system if that is what they prefer.

But what I see in this resolution is an effort to use the legitimate needs of our war wounded as a pretext to support funding increases that are beyond reason and that actually may harm the care provided to the veterans who are our No. 1 priority.

Let me point out a couple of areas where I think this budget fails our highest priority veterans and taxpayers.

The Democrats' budget proposes an extra $1.1 billion to allow new ``Priority 8'' veterans to enroll for VA health care. Now who are these Priority 8 veterans? Priority 8 veterans are veterans with no service- connected disabilities and higher incomes. They were granted comprehensive access to VA health care back in 1996 at a time when we thought their care could be provided on a budget-neutral basis. We were wrong. Priority 8 veterans then enrolled in such large numbers that quality and timely health care to VA's service-disabled and indigent patients began to be compromised.

In January 2003, Secretary Principi used authority granted to him by Congress to suspend new enrollment of Priority 8 veterans. His rationale was simple:

VA is maintaining its focus on the health care needs of its core group of veterans--those with service-connected disabilities, the indigent and those with special health care needs.

Taking the action he did on the eve of the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. He rightly instituted a policy that focused our limited resources on those for whom VA was established--our war injured and veterans who need VA the most.

All I have been hearing from the Democrats for the last 2 years is how we must not make our OIF/OEF veterans wait in lines for mental health

care, TBI treatment, or other specialty care. I agree! That is why their proposal puzzles me. At a time of war, when we're trying to get quicker access to VA care for our OIF/OEF and service-disabled veterans, how does allowing an increase in the patient load help matters? Where is the sense of priority here? It is like we are trying to keep a ship afloat by pouring tons of water onto the deck. It doesn't make sense.

For those who think that simply providing more money permits VA to automatically increase its capacity to see new patients, think again. It takes time to hire quality medical personnel. It takes time to find space to accommodate additional medical appointments and patients. Since 2003 VA has been able to improve the amount of time it takes to schedule primary and specialty care appointments so that more than 94 percent of such appointments are scheduled within 30 days of the veteran's desired date. Why would we risk longer waiting times for our OIF/OEF veterans and service-disabled veterans?

Furthermore, is this new spending fiscally prudent at a time when VA budgets have been growing at double-digit rates? There are 24 million veterans in the United States; only 5.3 million use VA health care now. Have the longterm cost implications of opening the system to all veterans been considered in this budget? Have we contemplated the multibillion dollar unfunded liability we are creating here if millions more Priority 8 veterans show up for free care?

Let me move on to another area that concerns me.

The chairman of the Budget Committee made it a point to show how his budget meets or exceeds the recommendations of the independent budget. That is all well and good, but when the IB is used to set budget policy for the Congress, then a fair evaluation of the budget numbers is in order. Let's look at one account in particular--general operating expenses. The Budget Committee chairman quite proudly stated that his budget meets the IB recommendation of $2.23 billion for this account.

The largest portion of this account funds the administration of VA's benefits programs, to include its backlogged claims processing system. The administration has submitted a proposal that would provide VBA with the highest number of claims processors in its history. In fact, the President's budget will result in what will have been a 61 percent increase in claims processing staff since 1997. While I support the President's budget, it is time we tried a new approach to fixing the backlog of disability claims. Simply providing more and more money to fix the problem does not solve the problem.

What do we have with the Democrats' budget? On top of the President's record increase, the IB recommends an extra $700 million: roughly $100 million for new information technology spending, and $600 million for additional staff. According to unofficial VA estimates, 600 million would buy over 10,000 VBA employees, almost double the size of the existing bureaucracy? VA cannot accommodate a staffing influx of this size in 1 year. It would have to lease hundreds of thousands of square feet and additional facilities all over the country. More money would be needed for communication services, utilities, personal computers and IT support staff.

Is this rational? Have the long-term costs been factored in? Was VA's ability to provide space for these employees factored in? Does the incoming workload command a bureaucracy of that enormous size? As ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have not seen any data to substantiate a request of that magnitude. I have even asked the authors of the IB to justify the number, but have yet to receive a response.

We are not talking about chump change here. If an error was made by the IB, and I suspect one was, then we should fix it before it is perpetuated.

Let me conclude with this final observation. VA has been criticized in recent years for its very public budget gaffes. The General Accountability Office rightly condemned VA for ``errors in estimation'' and ``inaccurate assumptions'' that led to the VA funding shortfall of 2005. I would caution my colleagues that we, in this budget resolution, may be repeating those same mistakes by providing money that VA could not prudently spend. It may be politically expedient to reflexively throw more money at problems. But let's also not forget about our obligations to the American taxpayer.

Mr. President, I rise today with the support of my colleague Senator Cantwell to introduce the Minidoka National Historic Site Act of 2007. This act will modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site.

Adjacent to the Minidoka Internment National Monument is Herrmann farm. Herrmann farm plays a historically significant role to the people of Idaho and the United States. During World War II, the Herrmann farm area was part of the Minidoka Relocation Center, one of the 10 city- like camps where Americans of Japanese descent were interned.

Herrmann farm is also an excellent example of how relocation center land was transformed after the war into small family farms suitable for irrigation and farming. Many of these farms were allotted to World War II veterans. These veteran settlers put forth the same stubborn American spirit and ingenuity with which they helped to win the war, to promote the farm area into a fruitful and prosperous agricultural section.

Herrmann farm became one of a few Farm-In-A-Day sites within the United States, where members of a community joined together in the creation of a farm site within one day.

The Minidoka Internment National Monument area is also a notable educational tool for residents of Idaho and the United States. Herrmann farm is an excellent location to inform the public about the post-camp homesteading era and agriculture in south-central Idaho as buildings, features, and artifacts from both the relocation center and the Farm- In-A-Day are present at the Minidoka site.

In addition to the historical and educational importance of Herrmann farm, the Minidoka Internment National Site honors the hardships and sacrifices of those Japanese Americans imprisoned during World War II. Many of the Japanese American's who lived at this site are reaching considerable age and want to see this area preserved for future generations.

The site will incorporate the Nidoto Nai Yoni, ``Let it not happen again'', memorial that commemorates those courageous Japanese Americans of Bainbridge Island, WA, who were the first to be forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps during World War II.

I ask the Senate to move swiftly on this bill, so the remaining few Japanese Americans who are still alive today can revisit this site that holds such meaningful memories. It is with pleasure and the support of the Senator from Washington, that I introduce this act which preserves areas of historical and educational importance for the people of Idaho, Washington and the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today with the support of my colleague Senator Cantwell to introduce the Minidoka National Historic Site Act of 2007. This act will modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site.

Adjacent to the Minidoka Internment National Monument is Herrmann farm. Herrmann farm plays a historically significant role to the people of Idaho and the United States. During World War II, the Herrmann farm area was part of the Minidoka Relocation Center, one of the 10 city- like camps where Americans of Japanese descent were interned.

Herrmann farm is also an excellent example of how relocation center land was transformed after the war into small family farms suitable for irrigation and farming. Many of these farms were allotted to World War II veterans. These veteran settlers put forth the same stubborn American spirit and ingenuity with which they helped to win the war, to promote the farm area into a fruitful and prosperous agricultural section.

Herrmann farm became one of a few Farm-In-A-Day sites within the United States, where members of a community joined together in the creation of a farm site within one day.

The Minidoka Internment National Monument area is also a notable educational tool for residents of Idaho and the United States. Herrmann farm is an excellent location to inform the public about the post-camp homesteading era and agriculture in south-central Idaho as buildings, features, and artifacts from both the relocation center and the Farm- In-A-Day are present at the Minidoka site.

In addition to the historical and educational importance of Herrmann farm, the Minidoka Internment National Site honors the hardships and sacrifices of those Japanese Americans imprisoned during World War II. Many of the Japanese American's who lived at this site are reaching considerable age and want to see this area preserved for future generations.

The site will incorporate the Nidoto Nai Yoni, ``Let it not happen again'', memorial that commemorates those courageous Japanese Americans of Bainbridge Island, WA, who were the first to be forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps during World War II.

I ask the Senate to move swiftly on this bill, so the remaining few Japanese Americans who are still alive today can revisit this site that holds such meaningful memories. It is with pleasure and the support of the Senator from Washington, that I introduce this act which preserves areas of historical and educational importance for the people of Idaho, Washington and the United States.

Madam President, we are brought back to the floor again this week to continue the debate on Iraq and whether the United States should begin to pull our troops out of Iraq. Yet again the majority leader has

brought legislation to the floor of the Senate that will set arbitrary timelines for U.S. withdrawal, sending a signal to the Iraqi people that we are poised to abandon them; while at the same time sending a strong message to our enemies that to defeat the United States, all they need to do is wait us out. That kind of policy will allow our current and future enemies to dictate our foreign policy for us, not the other way around.

General Petraeus has now only had weeks to implement his new strategy for stabilizing Baghdad. After a unanimous vote of confirmation, the majority party now wants to send a signal to General Petraeus that we not only have no confidence in his abilities to stabilize key parts of Iraq but that we have no faith in our soldiers ability as well. That is not a statement I am willing to send to our soldiers in combat. The majority would rather see 535 generals leading the way towards stability and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East, and I do not see that strategy as an effective way to run a war.

I cannot stress enough that our conflict in Iraq does not stop at the borders. Iraq is a central country in a very dangerous region of the world. Bordered by Iran and Syria, which are both contributing to the violence in Iraq, will clearly see a premature U.S. troop withdraw in Iraq as a symbol that our resolve is not strong enough to stop their ambitions for regional dominance.

A premature withdrawal from Iraq will almost certainly lead to a massive humanitarian crisis, which would leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians at the hands of murderous militias. I would ask of my colleagues who favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, are they willing to stand idly by as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are raped, beaten and murdered? I would assume the answer would be no, paving the way for an even greater peacekeeping force to be deployed to Iraq, and making the work to stabilize that country infinitely more difficult.

I think it is important for the American people to know that the roadblocks put up in the Senate regarding nonbinding votes on Iraq were not put up by the Republican minority. I have stood on this floor on more than one occasion debating the war this year. We have had, and will continue to have, full debates on the floor of the Senate regarding Iraq, but it is up to the majority leader whether those debates will be fair debates. I was pleased to see that an amendment offered by Senator Gregg will be allowed an up-or-down vote. This resolution clearly states that the Congress will not cut off any funding for soldiers we send into combat. An overwhelming majority of both the House and Senate voted to send these troops into war, and we all the responsibility to ensure that any American soldier in harm's way will have the full support of their government.

The majority party continuously denies planning or calling for defunding this war, and thus the troops, but several Democratic Senators and Congressmen have spoken publicly about their desire to eliminate funding for our soldiers. That is a very dangerous game to play, when Members will allow antiwar politics to convince Members of Congress that they should cut off funding for American troops on the battlefield.

Now, it is very clear that there is no single military operation that can bring stability to Iraq by itself. We need the Iraqi government to stand up on its own two feet and lead their country. We need an Iraqi economy to be strong and viable on its own in order to give the Iraqi people a choice between turning towards insurgent militias and terrorist organization, but instead to start new businesses and make constructive contributions to their society. However, without stability in the capital city, there can be no stable government and there can be no economic stability. The reinforcements called for by General Petraeus, which will assist in stabilizing Baghdad, are working to lower the levels of violence, and will pave the way for economic and government stability.

I, like all of my colleagues, want nothing else but to have our troops home and out of harm's way. That said, we should not be in such a rush to leave Iraq that we leave that country in shambles, creating a haven for terrorism and a humanitarian crisis that could rival or surpass any we have seen before.

We are at a critical juncture in this war. The American people are questioning our policies in Iraq, mistakes have been made over the three plus years we have been in Iraq, and I will readily admit that. But I do not believe that we are at a point of failure. The majority party is frustrated with our progress in Iraq, but I firmly believe that Congress micromanaging this war is the most detrimental policy our country could pursue. The Congress should not be in the business of setting arbitrary withdrawal timetables, setting troop levels, threatening funding for our soldiers, or sending messages to our soldiers that we have no faith in their mission.

The Senate is yet again going to be voting on a series of binding and nonbinding resolutions that will send a strong message to our soldiers, the American people, and to our enemies. I hope that my colleagues will speak in a loud voice of support to our soldiers; a resolute voice to the American people that we will not be defeated by radical insurgents and terrorist groups; and a firm voice to our enemies that we will not be defeated. Our national security, and that of our allies, is at stake, and I will not cast a vote to pull our troops out of Iraq prematurely and allow Iraq to become a base of operations for strikes against this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of the need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000.

This act expired September 30, 2006, and now over 700 counties and 4,400 school districts in 39 States are in financial limbo.

In simple terms, this means that 8 million kids in rural America are going to be impacted by Congress's inaction.

This is simply unacceptable.

I have been joined by several of my colleagues in introducing, S. 779, a simple one year reauthorization. This measure would provide some certainty to the impacted counties and schools while Congress works to address the larger issue of a multiyear reauthorization.

It is clear to me that the safety net payments need to continue, but in a manner that encourages and focuses on building collaboration--one of the cornerstones of this act.

For my colleagues who are unfamiliar with this issue, let me quickly review how the Congress got to this point.

In 1992, Congress provided some counties in the Pacific Northwest with a temporary financial ``safety net'' to help them transition from the timber boom years of the 1980s.

The safety net was scheduled to gradually phase out over a 10-year period, but demands for a more inclusive program resulted in its early termination and the enactment of another temporary program, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

This act was designed to allow counties an opportunity to transition back to the traditional revenue sharing programs.

The temporary safety net was originally recommended to Congress by the National Forest County Schools Coalition.

One of the Coalition's principles States that special payments to States under this legislation will provide a short-term safety net with a specific termination date.

The county payments program dramatically broadened the geographical and substantive scope of the original safety net payment.

The large majority of the funds still were focused on the Pacific Northwest, but the new national program permitted most States and counties across the country to participate and benefit from it thus, providing a measure of financial certainty to all counties that rely on revenues from Federal forest lands.

The act has been an enormous success, not just achieving but surpassing the goals of Congress.

This act has restored programs for students in rural areas and prevented the closure of numerous isolated schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to those enjoyed by suburban and urban students.

Next, the act has allowed rural county road districts to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced, and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced.

In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs, have been formed.

Nationally, these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and approved more than 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public and private lands.

These projects have addressed a wide variety of improvements drastically needed on our public lands. Projects have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.

RACs are a new and powerful partnership between county governments and the land management agencies.

They are rapidly building the capacity for collaborative public land management decision making in over 150 of our largest forest counties in America and are reducing the gridlock over public land management, community by community.

In the future, I feel the RACs will be providing the leadership to build consensus for projects that will keep our

forests healthy and as a result generate revenue for future projects, counties, and schools.

The achievements of this act over the last few years are positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our public lands.

If we do not work to reauthorize this act, all of the progress of the last 6 years will be lost.

Schools in timber dependant communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our children.

Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford.

Congress needs to act now in order to ensure a future for rural schools and counties.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on a bill that is being introduced by Senator Snowe today, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007. I am proud to join with Senator Snowe and Senator Pryor as an original cosponsor of this important bill.

This legislation will benefit patriot ``citizen-soldiers'' who are called from their employment at America's small businesses to serve our country in uniform. In States across the Nation, small businesses are being affected by the mobilization of our Guard and Reserve personnel. In my home State, the Idaho National Guard's 116th Brigade Combat Team returned in 2005 from an 18-month deployment to Iraq. I visited members of the 116th while they were in Iraq and discovered that a good number had left jobs at small businesses across Idaho. I also held a hearing in Idaho during the 109th Congress to examine the reemployment rights of returning Guard and Reserve members.

At that hearing, it was emphasized that, although legal rights to reemployment are critical, they do little for those who have no employer, or no small business, to return to. To me, it was clear that we should do more to help small businesses in coping with the financial hardships of frequent and lengthy mobilizations of its employees or owners during the war on terrorism. I believe we can provide some of that needed assistance with this legislation, which includes key provisions from The Patriot Loan Act of 2006, a bill that Senator Snowe and I introduced last year.

This bill would enhance the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, or MREIDL, Program. That program provides loan assistance to small businesses to help them meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses after essential employees are called to active duty in their roles as citizen-soldiers.

This bill would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1.5 million to $2 million. It would also allow the Small Business Administration, by direct loan or through banks, to offer unsecured loans of up to $25,000, an increase from the current $5,000 limit. In addition, this bill would ensure proactive outreach to Guard and Reserve members about the MREIDL Program and other small business programs by requiring SBA and the Department of Defense to develop a joint Web site and printed materials with information about those programs.

For the brave men and women who serve our Nation in the Guard and Reserve, we must do what we can to ensure that their sacrifices do not place them in financial harm's way when they return home. I urge my colleagues to support these measures, and I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in introducing this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on a bill that is being introduced by Senator Snowe today, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007. I am proud to join with Senator Snowe and Senator Pryor as an original cosponsor of this important bill.

This legislation will benefit patriot ``citizen-soldiers'' who are called from their employment at America's small businesses to serve our country in uniform. In States across the Nation, small businesses are being affected by the mobilization of our Guard and Reserve personnel. In my home State, the Idaho National Guard's 116th Brigade Combat Team returned in 2005 from an 18-month deployment to Iraq. I visited members of the 116th while they were in Iraq and discovered that a good number had left jobs at small businesses across Idaho. I also held a hearing in Idaho during the 109th Congress to examine the reemployment rights of returning Guard and Reserve members.

At that hearing, it was emphasized that, although legal rights to reemployment are critical, they do little for those who have no employer, or no small business, to return to. To me, it was clear that we should do more to help small businesses in coping with the financial hardships of frequent and lengthy mobilizations of its employees or owners during the war on terrorism. I believe we can provide some of that needed assistance with this legislation, which includes key provisions from The Patriot Loan Act of 2006, a bill that Senator Snowe and I introduced last year.

This bill would enhance the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, or MREIDL, Program. That program provides loan assistance to small businesses to help them meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses after essential employees are called to active duty in their roles as citizen-soldiers.

This bill would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1.5 million to $2 million. It would also allow the Small Business Administration, by direct loan or through banks, to offer unsecured loans of up to $25,000, an increase from the current $5,000 limit. In addition, this bill would ensure proactive outreach to Guard and Reserve members about the MREIDL Program and other small business programs by requiring SBA and the Department of Defense to develop a joint Web site and printed materials with information about those programs.

For the brave men and women who serve our Nation in the Guard and Reserve, we must do what we can to ensure that their sacrifices do not place them in financial harm's way when they return home. I urge my colleagues to support these measures, and I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in introducing this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about recent events reported in the media surrounding the care and housing provided to our returning, injured service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. Walter Reed, of course, is an Army-run facility. As such, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Committee, which I am proud to lead along with my Chairman, Senator Akaka.

Never-the-less, the American public--rightly--does not care who runs the place or who oversees it in Congress. Collectively, VA and DOD make up a system of services provided to active and former members of our Armed Forces.

Of course, we have all read about the poor conditions in Building 18 at Walter Reed. I am not here on the floor today to defend poor physical infrastructure. It is bad, a free press reported it, senior officials were held accountable, and it is being fixed.

I am here instead to talk about how the justified uproar over the conditions at Walter Reed seems to have provided an opportunity for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hone in on new strategy for criticizing the war. The strategy appears to me to be one of ``questioning the competency'' of those who work in our Federal system caring for our wounded servicemembers.

Now I don't want to accuse anyone of politicizing the care and treatment of our most deserving citizens. But, I have to wonder when I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle using a slight variation on one of their ``catch-phrases'' from the 2006 elections. I've heard one of my colleagues lament the ``culture of command'' in the military as the reason for poor conditions at Walter Reed.

I don't really know what the ``culture of command'' means, other than it sounds a lot like phrases used during the last election. But this time they are using that playbook with the care provided by the 220,000 dedicated employees of the VA health care system.

Speaking of which, I want to caution my colleagues who have used the case of the young veteran from Minnesota who tragically took his own life a few weeks ago as an example of what is wrong with the VA health care system. Some of us on the Veterans' Committee have been briefed thoroughly about all of the facts in this case. And while HIPPA prevents VA from defending itself in this situation, I am not so constrained.

That said, I do not intend to reveal at this time the facts surrounding this case. But, I believe all of my colleagues would tone down their rhetoric on this example if all of the facts known to me were known to them.

Still, there is no question that every individual instance of poor care or treatment is a tragedy. And, every one of them should be investigated. There should be accountability at the highest levels. And there should be consequences if VA is found to have been responsible for inappropriate treatment.

But I have to say that using anecdotes of horribly unfortunate situations, such as the Minneapolis tragedy to castigate an entire system of health care and the people who provide is not fair. It is simply not fair.

But then again politics sometimes has no fairness.

Over the past 2 weeks, more than one Member has come to the floor or spoken in the press about how the VA system is failing our wounded service men and women. Frankly perhaps we have failed them by not taking actions to make those wounded in service the priority that we say they are.

Instead, all I hear from Members on the other side is: we haven't given VA enough money. In fact, I hear we are preparing to throw $5 billion at the VA in the supplemental Appropriations bill.

I find that to be very interesting especially when I consider that this Senate just 3 weeks ago passed an FY 2007 Joint Funding Resolution written wholly by the new majority.

This is what some of my colleagues had to say about the money provided in that bill for VA's health care system. One Senator from the majority said: ``We have included an increase of $3.6 billion . . . so that the VA can continue to meet the growing demand for health care for our veterans.''

Another said: ``If we do not pass this resolution, which includes needed funding for the veterans health care system, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.''

And still another Senator from the majority had this to say arguing for passage of the FY 2007 Resolution: ``We need a VA budget for the current year that meets their needs.''

Yet now I hear that the VA is chronically under funded. The first chance the new majority had to provide all of the funding they believed was needed was 3 weeks ago. That's right, just 3 weeks ago. And apparently they neglected to do so.

Frankly, I think the budget for 2007 was an excellent budget. And I voted for it. So, I am not going to run away from that right now. And I certainly don't know if I can support throwing $5 billion at it because the media is watching. Instead, I have a different idea.

I don't want to wait for a commission to report to me on the findings of their review of the VA health care system. Those findings will be important, of course. I thank Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala for their willingness to once again serve.

But, I say that we already have our own commission and our own investigators on the ground every single day. They are the veterans who use the VA health care system. And overwhelmingly they are proud of their health care system.

In fact, I am so confident that the vast majority of our veterans feel that way that I announce today that I will introduce legislation to give ANY service-connected disabled veteran the choice to go to any medical facility in the United States.

I understand that it may sound like I am agreeing with my Democratic colleagues and that I have lost faith in the VA health care system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I believe the vast majority of our veterans will choose to stay right where they are--in the VA.

Our veterans know that VA is not a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who deserve to be vilified at the drop of a political hat. Instead our veterans see everyday the caring dedicated men and women who treat them as they should be treated--with respect and compassion.

Veterans overwhelmingly will continue to come to the VA because of its people. They are some of the most caring individuals in government. And they provide some of the highest quality of care in the country. So, I believe in empowering our veterans with this selection because I believe our veterans will select VA.

It's not just me who believes in VA. For the seventh year in a row VA's health care system outscored the private sector in the University of Michigan's Consumer Satisfaction Survey:

Ninety-one percent of VA's patients rated VA as having good customer service;

Eighty-four percent of VA's patients were satisfied with their inpatient care compared to the private sector average of just 73 percent; and

Eighty-two percent are satisfied with their outpatient care compared with just 71 percent on average in the private sector.

You might say: ``Well, then 10 or 16 percent were not satisfied and that's a disgrace.'' I agree. We should strive for 100 percent satisfaction.

But what we should not do is force our most deserving citizens to stay in a system for their health care while we talk about how to study it or while we throw money at it and declare we've done something.

I want to be clear. I think the number of veterans who don't trust VA for their care is small. But I also think that if they've been injured while serving this Nation, then we should not force even a small number of them to keep coming to us if they don't trust us.

We have all of the objective studies, articles, and reviews that say we're good. Now let's find out what our veterans think. If they leave in droves, then we'll learn something. But if they stay, as I think they will, then we'll learn something too.

So I say to my colleagues if you don't believe that our doctors and nurses are providing the best care in the best facilities right now, then I invite you to join me in giving those with service-connected disabilities the option to pick up tomorrow and go to a facility they trust.

Don't just stand up and throw money at it. Stand in the well of the Senate and vote to empower our heroes by providing them with immediate relief.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about recent events reported in the media surrounding the care and housing provided to our returning, injured service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. Walter Reed, of course, is an Army-run facility. As such, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Committee, which I am proud to lead along with my Chairman, Senator Akaka.

Never-the-less, the American public--rightly--does not care who runs the place or who oversees it in Congress. Collectively, VA and DOD make up a system of services provided to active and former members of our Armed Forces.

Of course, we have all read about the poor conditions in Building 18 at Walter Reed. I am not here on the floor today to defend poor physical infrastructure. It is bad, a free press reported it, senior officials were held accountable, and it is being fixed.

I am here instead to talk about how the justified uproar over the conditions at Walter Reed seems to have provided an opportunity for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hone in on new strategy for criticizing the war. The strategy appears to me to be one of ``questioning the competency'' of those who work in our Federal system caring for our wounded servicemembers.

Now I don't want to accuse anyone of politicizing the care and treatment of our most deserving citizens. But, I have to wonder when I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle using a slight variation on one of their ``catch-phrases'' from the 2006 elections. I've heard one of my colleagues lament the ``culture of command'' in the military as the reason for poor conditions at Walter Reed.

I don't really know what the ``culture of command'' means, other than it sounds a lot like phrases used during the last election. But this time they are using that playbook with the care provided by the 220,000 dedicated employees of the VA health care system.

Speaking of which, I want to caution my colleagues who have used the case of the young veteran from Minnesota who tragically took his own life a few weeks ago as an example of what is wrong with the VA health care system. Some of us on the Veterans' Committee have been briefed thoroughly about all of the facts in this case. And while HIPPA prevents VA from defending itself in this situation, I am not so constrained.

That said, I do not intend to reveal at this time the facts surrounding this case. But, I believe all of my colleagues would tone down their rhetoric on this example if all of the facts known to me were known to them.

Still, there is no question that every individual instance of poor care or treatment is a tragedy. And, every one of them should be investigated. There should be accountability at the highest levels. And there should be consequences if VA is found to have been responsible for inappropriate treatment.

But I have to say that using anecdotes of horribly unfortunate situations, such as the Minneapolis tragedy to castigate an entire system of health care and the people who provide is not fair. It is simply not fair.

But then again politics sometimes has no fairness.

Over the past 2 weeks, more than one Member has come to the floor or spoken in the press about how the VA system is failing our wounded service men and women. Frankly perhaps we have failed them by not taking actions to make those wounded in service the priority that we say they are.

Instead, all I hear from Members on the other side is: we haven't given VA enough money. In fact, I hear we are preparing to throw $5 billion at the VA in the supplemental Appropriations bill.

I find that to be very interesting especially when I consider that this Senate just 3 weeks ago passed an FY 2007 Joint Funding Resolution written wholly by the new majority.

This is what some of my colleagues had to say about the money provided in that bill for VA's health care system. One Senator from the majority said: ``We have included an increase of $3.6 billion . . . so that the VA can continue to meet the growing demand for health care for our veterans.''

Another said: ``If we do not pass this resolution, which includes needed funding for the veterans health care system, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.''

And still another Senator from the majority had this to say arguing for passage of the FY 2007 Resolution: ``We need a VA budget for the current year that meets their needs.''

Yet now I hear that the VA is chronically under funded. The first chance the new majority had to provide all of the funding they believed was needed was 3 weeks ago. That's right, just 3 weeks ago. And apparently they neglected to do so.

Frankly, I think the budget for 2007 was an excellent budget. And I voted for it. So, I am not going to run away from that right now. And I certainly don't know if I can support throwing $5 billion at it because the media is watching. Instead, I have a different idea.

I don't want to wait for a commission to report to me on the findings of their review of the VA health care system. Those findings will be important, of course. I thank Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala for their willingness to once again serve.

But, I say that we already have our own commission and our own investigators on the ground every single day. They are the veterans who use the VA health care system. And overwhelmingly they are proud of their health care system.

In fact, I am so confident that the vast majority of our veterans feel that way that I announce today that I will introduce legislation to give ANY service-connected disabled veteran the choice to go to any medical facility in the United States.

I understand that it may sound like I am agreeing with my Democratic colleagues and that I have lost faith in the VA health care system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I believe the vast majority of our veterans will choose to stay right where they are--in the VA.

Our veterans know that VA is not a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who deserve to be vilified at the drop of a political hat. Instead our veterans see everyday the caring dedicated men and women who treat them as they should be treated--with respect and compassion.

Veterans overwhelmingly will continue to come to the VA because of its people. They are some of the most caring individuals in government. And they provide some of the highest quality of care in the country. So, I believe in empowering our veterans with this selection because I believe our veterans will select VA.

It's not just me who believes in VA. For the seventh year in a row VA's health care system outscored the private sector in the University of Michigan's Consumer Satisfaction Survey:

Ninety-one percent of VA's patients rated VA as having good customer service;

Eighty-four percent of VA's patients were satisfied with their inpatient care compared to the private sector average of just 73 percent; and

Eighty-two percent are satisfied with their outpatient care compared with just 71 percent on average in the private sector.

You might say: ``Well, then 10 or 16 percent were not satisfied and that's a disgrace.'' I agree. We should strive for 100 percent satisfaction.

But what we should not do is force our most deserving citizens to stay in a system for their health care while we talk about how to study it or while we throw money at it and declare we've done something.

I want to be clear. I think the number of veterans who don't trust VA for their care is small. But I also think that if they've been injured while serving this Nation, then we should not force even a small number of them to keep coming to us if they don't trust us.

We have all of the objective studies, articles, and reviews that say we're good. Now let's find out what our veterans think. If they leave in droves, then we'll learn something. But if they stay, as I think they will, then we'll learn something too.

So I say to my colleagues if you don't believe that our doctors and nurses are providing the best care in the best facilities right now, then I invite you to join me in giving those with service-connected disabilities the option to pick up tomorrow and go to a facility they trust.

Don't just stand up and throw money at it. Stand in the well of the Senate and vote to empower our heroes by providing them with immediate relief.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

Last year, Congress answered Americans' calls for tax relief when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts--contained in the legislation assisted small businesses, encouraged the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensured fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left picking up the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.

Alongside these essential tax relief provisions, however, conferees quietly inserted Section 511, a last-minute $7 billion tax penalty on government contractors, into the bill. Thus, the bill, whose aim was ``tax increase prevention,'' actually raised taxes. On the same day the President signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act into law, I introduced the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006 and made good on my promise to work to repeal Section 511. Today, I am renewing that promise.

Section 511--the largest revenue-raiser by far in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act--imposes a sweeping new 3 percent tax withholding on all government payments for products and services made by the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments with expenditures of $100 million or more. It affects payments for goods and services under government contracts and payments to any person for a service or product provided to a government entity--for example, Medicare and certain grants--beginning in 2011.

Section 511 will not close the tax gap--or the difference between what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay--as proponents of the provision argue. Section 511 is estimated to ``increase'' revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015, but raises $6 billion of that amount due solely to accelerated tax receipts and not an actual revenue increase from tax compliance. It generates only $215 million in 2012 and increases slightly in each of the three years thereafter hardly the $290 billion annual tax gap the IRS estimates. Further, Section 511 is based on revenues from government payments with no relationship to a company's taxable income or tax liability. Section 511 hurts honest taxpaying businesses without providing any additional enforcement mechanisms for tax delinquents.

Section 511's costs to businesses are substantial. Although proponents of Section 511 call the 3 percent withholding rate ``low'' and ``conservative,'' in most cases, businesses make substantially less than 3 percent profit on their contracts and sometimes, turn no profit at all. Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks-- interest free--thereby impeding the cash

flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or finance the additional amount.

Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the Federal, State, and local governments--costs so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the state and local governments. The projected costs of Section 511, says CBO, will far exceed the allowable $50 million annual threshold.

More than the costs to government, though, Section 511 stands to negatively impact nearly every sector of the economy--from health care and technology to building and transportation--and there is already talk of expanding the provision's reach and accelerating its effective date. What there wasn't talk of, though--at the inception of Section 511--was the provision itself. Congress never debated the merits of an expanded withholding requirement--as a revenue-raiser or as a way to narrow the tax gap--in a committee or on either chamber's floor. If it had, Congress would have realized that it does neither of these things well. Section 511 is the start of years of bad tax policy. We can do better than this, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal this unfair tax penalty.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a one year only reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act.

For the last six years, this Act has provided critical funding to our rural schools and counties and has built collaboration on the ground through the accomplishments of the Resource Advisory Committees.

Unfortunately Congress has not been able to reauthorize P.L. 106-393 and I do not feel the schools and counties should become victims while we in Congress negotiate a path forward.

Thus, I am introducing this bill today and will work to include it in any legislation that is being considered by the Senate.

The Act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This Act has restored programs for students in rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of this Act.

Next, the Act has allowed rural county road districts and county road departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced.

In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs have been formed. These RAC's cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and approved over 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of improvements drastically needed on our National Forests. Projects have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.

The accomplishments of this Act over the last few years are positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our National Forests.

If we do not work to reauthorize this Act, all of the progress of the last six years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford.