Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. We have several on our side. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, under a unanimous consent request, I have asked for 5 minutes. I will use one of those and yield the remaining 4 to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement by the American Legion, the largest veterans organization in this country. I will only quote its last paragraph: The American Legion and the American people find this to be a totally unacceptable approach and we will do everything within our power to ensure that our troops are not used as political pawns by a Congress that lacks the will to win. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with Senator Joe Lieberman today and to listen to his remarks, frankly, to stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue because he has been that, a bipartisan leader, recognizing, as he so appropriately has spoken, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in our Nation's history. And he has said it well. It is not one of micromanagement. It is not one of 535 generals all thinking we can act and think strategically about the engagement currently underway in Baghdad. It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish they will be able to accomplish, and that is the stability of Iraq, the allowing of the Iraqi people to once again lead their country and to take from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is well underway and dominating the region. Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with what Senator Lieberman has spoken to. This is not, nor should it ever become, a partisan issue. I think his presence on the floor this afternoon speaks volumes to that. This is not a partisan issue. This is a phenomenally important national and international issue for our country to be engaged in that, frankly, few countries can engage in the way we have and with the kind of energy and strength we have brought to it. The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican that maybe my colleague cannot say.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will be relatively brief. I was instructed to be here at 1:15, but I think we have had a runover of time; is that not correct?

Mr. CRAIG. Can we inquire of the Chair?

Mr. CRAIG. His time is?

Mr. CRAIG. May I ask the Senator how much time he planned to consume?

Mr. CRAIG. I will take no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with Senator Joe Lieberman today and listen to his remarks, and frankly, to stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue. Because he has been that, a bipartisan leader recognizing, as he so appropriately has spoke, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in our Nation's history. And he has said it well, it is not one of micromanagement, it is not 1 of 535 generals all thinking we can act strategically and tactically about the engagement currently underway in Baghdad and elsewhere across Iraq. It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish they will be able to accomplish and that is the stability of Iraq and the greater Middle East and allowing the Iraqi people to lead their country and remove from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is well underway and dominating the region. Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with what Senator Lieberman spoke to. This is not, nor should it ever become, a partisan issue and I think Senator Lieberman's presence on the floor this afternoon speaks volumes to just that, that this is not a partisan issue. This is a phenomenally important national and international issue for our country to be engaged in. Frankly, few countries can engage in this struggle in that way we have, and with the kind of energy and strength that we have brought to it. The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican that maybe my colleague cannot say. I believe that the majority leader is playing politics on the issue of calling up a nonbinding resolution, while blocking the minority from calling up a different resolution. My good friend Senator Gregg has introduced a bill, a bill that I have cosponsored, that would express our full support for our soldiers in harms way and give them a much needed guarantee that they will continue to receive the funding they need to continue to function in their critical mission. As I said, the majority leader refuses to allow us a vote on this bill, and I think that is plain wrong. Let me make it very clear, it is not the Republicans stalling or shutting down debate on the issue of Iraq. In fact, it is just the opposite. I have spoken twice in the last 2 weeks about this issue because I believe it is very critical, both to my constituency in Idaho, but also to our great Nation and the world. The majority claims that they want full and fair debate on this issue, yet they refuse to allow us to bring our own voice to this issue, and our own resolutions. How can we have a full and fair debate and vote on the floor of the Senate if we are being held hostage by the majority leader? No State goes untouched by what we do here today and no man or woman in uniform goes untouched. Twenty Idahoans have given their lives in Iraq, and each of their sacrifices is sacred and honored, not just by their families and friend but by all. Most recently, SPC Ross Clevenger and PVT Raymond Werner of Boise, and SGT James Holtom of Rexberg were killed in Iraq in an IED attack. They, like all those who have fallen to enemy hands, served in a heroic and gallant way for a cause they believed in and a cause that we believe in. That is the cause of freedom. Senator Lieberman said it well, for us to send one of our top generals and top military minds in GEN David Petraeus to Iraq and say by a unanimous vote that we support him and believe in his abilities, but at the same time we do not support his mission, what are we saying as a Congress? What kind of message are we sending to our men and women in uniform when we speak in that manner? I think it is wrong to send this message and I will vigorously oppose that message. If the majority leader and his Democratic colleagues believe so strongly that our mission in Iraq is so flawed, then why do we not see them bringing to the floor a bill to cut off funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq? As I mentioned earlier, the answer to that is a political answer, not a substance issue. Many Democrats have already called for cutting off funding and demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, yet we have not seen those bills being taken up on the floor of either chamber. However, there are rumors that Members will choose to use the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill to force the President to take the advice of these congressional generals, rather than using the advice of our military experts and commanders to execute our mission and secure Iraq. The reason I do not support such an immediate withdrawal of our troops, or cutting funding off for our troops in gun fights right now in the streets of Baghdad, is simple. I believe in our mission and I believe that our soldiers are the most capable in the world. The only enemy that can defeat American soldiers on the battlefield is the low morale of the American people. A resolution condemning their actions and their mission in Iraq is just the kind of defeat that could embolden our enemies and harm our soldiers. As every one of my colleagues knows, the reinforcements we are debating are already in motion. In fact, the President's plan to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar Province are already showing signs of success. The Iraqi government is closing down their borders with Syria and Iran, a critical decision that will limit the number of foreign fighters and enemy weapons from entering Iraq, weapons that are being used to kill American soldiers. Lastly, I would say that our presence in Iraq does not just affect Iraq. The greater Middle East and the security of world are at stake. Are we going to turn a blind eye to Iraq and allow it to become a safe haven for terrorists the way that Afghanistan was under the Taliban regime? I certainly will do all that I can as a U.S. Senator to prevent that from happening because it is in our national interests to defeat our enemies abroad before they can strike us again here at home.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak to you briefly regarding another critical issue and that is the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Reauthorization Act. When we return after our Presidents Day recess, it is vital we re- engage in a critical issue for timber dependent school districts in Idaho and across our country. This bill once referred to as Craig/ Wyden, helped many rural school districts move through a difficult time in their history and school children now find themselves in a very difficult situation. As you may know, many rural schools in this country have funding tied directly to timber harvest from our public lands. For several reasons, we haven't harvested timber at our historical rate and our rural schools in those particular counties have suffered. I am working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues from Montana, Oregon, Washington, California, New Mexico and of course Idaho. We all see the importance of continuing this funding to some extent. I am committed, as is Senator Wyden, to ensuring the success of the bill that bears our name. It is my intent, as well as others, to redefine the formula. Our key dates to shape this critical issue are the Energy and Natural Resources hearing scheduled for March 1; as well as the emergency appropriations supplemental debate tentatively scheduled for the middle of March. The timing is at a critical point. Our timber-dependent county officials and school districts are wrestling with budgets that are tied to this funding. I say today, clearly, failure is not an option. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am proud to rise in support of the confirmation of Norman Randy Smith to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There is no question about Randy Smith's credentials or competence for this position. He has been a State district judge in Idaho's Sixth Judicial District for a decade. He has served as a felony drug court judge and a pro tem justice on the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals. He has a wealth of experience in both the practice and teaching of law, and he has been an active member of the bar association and other professional associations. There is also no question about Judge Smith's character and fitness for this office. Randy Smith is deeply involved in his community and State, and he has held positions of leadership and responsibility in a wide variety of organizations. He is respected and well-liked by Republicans and Democrats alike throughout the State of Idaho. He is a fine man--the kind of person you would want to have as a scout leader for your kids. He is a principled and knowledgeable community citizen--the kind of person you would want to have on your team or your board. He is a thoughtful, objective judge--the kind of judge you would trust to render an impartial and well-reasoned decision. Men and women come to the bench by many different roads, including academia or elected public office. Randy Smith's real-world experience gives him a perspective and skill-set that will be extremely valuable on the appellate court. His character and competence fit him to advance to this important position, and Idahoans are confident that he would be a tremendous asset to our region, and the Nation, as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Colorado is going to speak a little longer, but he has agreed I can interject myself but for a moment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today is an essential day in my life. It is not just Valentines Day. It happens to be the anniversary of the first date I had with my wife Suzanne. Am I a romantic? Well, maybe just a little bit. Little did I know then that one day we would be celebrating the first date as a married couple with three children and nine grandchildren. Over the years, I have taken to the Senate to announce the news of our growing family and I ask my colleagues' indulgence again today to send a special valentine to the two most recent additions to our family. Born November 20 of 2004, a beautiful granddaughter named Lily Terese Craig. On April 18 of 2006, another beautiful grandchild, Damon Oliver Craig, was born into our family. It is a thrill to be a granddad to these wonderful children. It has been a great joy to hold them, to love them, to see them around, and to watch them grow. My wife Suzanne and I look forward to many happy experiences with Lily and Damon and the rest of our crew. Often we come to the Senate to talk about momentous and meaningful events, but there is no more important event than when grandchildren enter our lives. Let me thank my colleagues. Let me thank my colleague from Colorado for letting me share with all how much we enjoy these new lives in our family on this Valentines Day. I yield the floor.