Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to where we are at this time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday was tax day 2007. I had hoped to come to the floor at that time, but we were busy on several other issues. I join with my friend and colleague, Senator Shelby, as a cosponsor of S. 1040, which will replace our current broken tax system with a simple, what I call fair flat tax. Over the years that I have served the State of Idaho in the Congress, I have looked numerous times at the concept of a flat tax and believe it to be by far a more preferable system for all our taxpayers to be involved in. Only a few weeks ago, we debated the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution and some recurring points began to emerge. Over and over again, from both sides of the aisle, we heard about the repeal of the death tax, the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, the child tax credit, and marriage penalty relief, and problems associated with the so-called tax gap. The average American listening to that debate, if they were not true students of the Tax Code or if, in fact, they hadn't been victims of that portion of the Tax Code, would have wondered in what kind of code the Senators were speaking or talking through at the moment. Congress has offered temporary fixes to these problems for years, but these problems are merely symptoms of a larger problem that needs fixing. I believe the larger problem is we have a convoluted, broken Tax Code system today. The current Tax Code is--well, let me use this as an example. In 2005, according to the IRS's own estimates, Americans spent 6.4 billion hours preparing their tax returns and a whopping $265 billion in related compliance costs. You know that if you make any kind of money at all and you can afford to, you start hiring attorneys and tax experts to find ways of manipulating yourself through the system, not necessarily to avoid taxes but maybe to provide some level of inheritance to your children and your grandchildren so Uncle Sam doesn't get it on your moment of death. The complication has increasingly grown over the years and, of course, the cost is phenomenal. So, Mr. President, if you will bear with me for a moment, think about this analysis: Americans, if they had to wade through the 66,498 pages--that is right, 66,498 pages--of the Federal tax rules on a letter-size sheet of paper, that amount of pages would stand about 22 feet tall. That is about three times taller than I am with cowboy boots and a cowboy hat on. That is pretty significant stuff. Yet the average American is supposed to figure out how to get through that? That is why they spend $265 billion hiring the experts to figure out how to get them through it. The Tax Code's purpose is simply to fund the Federal Government, but we have turned it into a system loaded with preferences, deductions, credits and exceptions and, yes, other kinds of loopholes that cater to a special-interest tier and fail to treat all taxpayers fairly because we politically are manipulating where we want the money to go, how we want the economy to run, how we want the average person to spend or not spend his or her hard-earned wages in a way that is, by our definition, beneficial to the country, to the culture, to the economy at large. The time for half-measures ought to be over. Fundamental reform is the only thing that will restore, in my opinion, fairness and simplicity to the system, and I have long thought a flat tax is the best approach toward reforming the code. A flat tax, such as the one in S. 1040, will provide a simple flat rate of 19 percent, eliminate special preferences, end the double taxation of savings and investment, and provide a generous exemption based on family size. Not everyone agrees--I am sure we all understand that--but that shouldn't stop the conversation, the fundamental debate, the energy of this Senate and this Congress becoming involved in reforming our Tax Code for the greater benefit of our country. That is one of the reasons why I joined Senator Wyden, a Democrat on the other side of the aisle, in launching a bipartisan Cleanse the Code Coalition. Although Members of the coalition disagree sharply about the best approach to tax reform, we all agree fundamentally that reform is imperative, that it is something that should embody the principles of simplicity, fairness, and fiscal responsibility. Our current tax system is a handicap on our Nation's citizens, our businesses, and our economy. As we continue to increase our competitive character and compete with other economies around the world, those features of simplicity and fairness become increasingly important. Our current tax system is a handicap. There is something that ought to be done about it. We will, again, tinker around the edges, as we did with the 2008 budget resolution that sets parameters for spending and for revenues and, once again, we will talk about it a great deal more than we will act on it. When we act, we will simply adjust and change and modify, and every time we do, in that illustrative picture I gave you, we will add another cowboy hat to the top of my head and make that 66,000-page stack of papers that is 22 feet tall a little taller for the average American to work their way through in frustration, sometimes in anger, sometimes in fear that they have failed to comply and the IRS is just around the corner. I hope that a day will come in April, a year or two from now, when the process of filing a tax return is a simple sheet of paper: Here is how much I have made, you apply the 19 percent to it, it is all online, and you don't have to hire attorneys and accountants in great complication to weave your way through the morass of rules and regulations. And Americans for the first time could say: You know, that was a pretty easy task. I am a responsible citizen. I have paid my taxes. As one who gains the great benefit of this country, while we may not necessarily like it, it ought to be an easy and painless task to do. That ought to be our challenge. That is why I am a part of the legislation and in support of it and why I am on the Senate floor today--to challenge my colleagues to think a little more about it. It ought not be a game of dodge and hide and replace and reshape. It truly ought to be one of saying to the average citizen: We want to make it easy, we want to make it simple for you to fulfill your responsibility in assisting your Government in paying for the necessary services it needs in a straightforward and, most importantly, simplistic way. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG. 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?

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

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the order now?

Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. 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.