Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will offer small businesses greater flexibility in complying with their tax obligations. This legislation is one of a series of proposals that, once enacted, will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies when trying to comply with the tax laws.

The proposal that I am introducing today will permit start-up small business owners to use a taxable year other than the calendar year if they generally earn fewer than $5 million during the tax year.

Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we begin evaluating how we can reduce the administrative burden of the tax code. As is well-known small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private sector output.

Yet, despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system is placing an entirely unreasonable burden on them when trying to satisfy their tax obligations. The current tax code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. The problem, though, is that small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation.

For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend an astounding 8 billion hours each year complying with government reports. They also spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs; an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms.

These statistics are disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole.

Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--namely running their business and creating jobs.

Let me be clear that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I'm certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. What I'm asking for, though, is a change to make the tax code fairer and simpler so that small companies can satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently.

For that reason, the package of proposals that I have introduced will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but also simpler rules under the tax code. By simplifying the tax code, small

business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, allowing them to be able to devote more time and resources to their business.

Specifically, the proposal that I am introducing today will permit more taxpayers to use the taxable year most suitable to their business cycle. Until 1986, businesses could elect the taxable year-end that made the most economic sense for the business. In 1986, Congress passed legislation requiring partnerships and S corporations, many of which are small businesses, to adopt a December 31 year-end. The tax code does provide alternatives to the calendar year for small businesses, but the compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with these alternatives prove to be too high for most small businesses to utilize.

Meanwhile, C corporations, as large corporations often are, receive much more flexibility in their choice of taxable year. A C corporation can adopt either a calendar year or any fiscal year for tax purposes, as along as it keeps its books on that basis. This creates the unfair result of allowing larger businesses with greater resources greater flexibility in choosing a taxable year than smaller firms with fewer resources. This simply does not make sense to me. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the taxable year that best suits their business.

Importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a small business pays by even one dollar. The overall amount of taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. This bill simply permits more taxpayers to use a taxable year other than the calendar year and makes tax compliance easier.

This bill is good policy and common sense. I look forward to working with the bill's cosponsor, Senator Lincoln, in providing small businesses with more flexibility in meeting their tax obligations.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce a modified version of S. 1122, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, which we introduced last year. This modified bill is a culmination of months of negotiation with members of the climbing community, local and state stakeholders, and other interested parties. It is an effort to strengthen the land exchange in a way that better meets the needs of outdoor recreation, conservation, resource protection, and mining interests.

Let me briefly explain the new provisions in this bill. First, you may recall that S. 1122 contained a placeholder for additional climbing provisions. I included this provision in our bill as a good faith offer to the climbing community to work with us and the proponent of this land exchange, Resolution Copper Company, to address the loss of public access to climbing at Oak Flat in a way that did not compromise public safety. The discussions over the last six months have been fruitful. There will be continued interim use of Oak Flat and some additional access to climbing on Resolution Copper's private land--all subject to public safety requirements.

This modified bill goes a step further in addressing the loss of recreation at Oak Flat. S. 1122 required the identification and development of a replacement climbing site. I am pleased to announce that representatives from Resolution Copper, working in cooperation with climbers and federal land managers, have found a climbing gem about 20 miles from Oak Flat, near Hayden and Kearny, Arizona in the Tam O'Shanter Mountains. ``Tamo,'' as it is now nicknamed, has the quality of rock and the elevation and diversity of cliffs, climbing walls, and boulders that rock climbers seek. Couple these characteristics with Arizona's mild weather and this site has the potential to be a four season climbing destination and tourism draw for Arizona.

Recognizing this potential, Arizona State Parks, Resolution Copper, and the Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with the communities and other mining interests, have been working together on a proposal to turn ``Tamo'' into Arizona's newest State park. This proposed State park would place a special emphasis on rock climbing, but would also have opportunities for camping and other outdoor recreation. To turn ``Tamo'' into State park is not an easy task. Currently, Arizona State Parks lack the legal authority to acquire ``Tamo,'' but it is seeking it through the Arizona state legislature. I am pleased to report that a State bill containing this authority successfully passed the state Senate with overwhelming support from the Sierra Club, Access Fund, and ASARCO, a mining company operating in the vicinity. The stakeholders tell me this issue and others concerning access to the site are close to resolution. For this reason, I am including language in this bill that would facilitate a recreation and public purposes conveyance of ``Tamo'' to Arizona State Parks.

This conveyance, of course, would be subject to resolution of these issues.

Besides addressing climbing and recreation concerns, this modified bill does even more for environmental conservation and effective land management than the original by adding to the private land package two additional parcels: East Clear Creek and Dripping Springs.

The East Clear Creek parcel encompasses 640 acres and is one of the largest single blocks of private inholdings within the Coconino National Forest. The parcel includes two miles of East Clear Creek, hence its name, and magnificent canyons that drop as much as 2,000 feet in some areas. This unique landscape is a wildlife transition zone between the upper plateau dominated by ponderosa pine and the riparian corridor of the creek, allowing it to support several threatened and sensitive species including bald eagle, peregrine falcon, fish, reptile and amphibian species and big game species such as Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, turkey, and black bear. This parcel has been identified and is strongly endorsed for public acquisition by the U.S. Forest Service and the Trust for Public Lands.

The Dripping Springs parcel encompasses 160 acres in the Dripping Springs Mountains near Tam O'Shanter Peak in Gila County. This parcel has rock formations with excellent climbing opportunities and is within the contemplated boundaries of the proposed state park.

In summary, this land exchange gives us the ability to preserve highly sought-after land, important for wildlife habitat, cultural resources, watershed and land-management objectives, to promote outdoor recreation and tourism, and to generate economic opportunities for state and local residents in the copper triangle region in Arizona. It is good for our environment and our economy. I urge my colleagues to approve the legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, which will designate approximately 34,500 acres of forest land in the State of New Hampshire as wilderness. Our bill, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, will enact the recommended wilderness designations as set forth in the Forest Service Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest.

Established under the Weeks Act of 1911, the White Mountain National Forest consists of nearly 800,000 acres--732,000 acres in the State of New Hampshire and 65,000 acres more in Maine. Over 6 million people visit the White Mountain National Forest annually, making it one of the most popular National Forests in the Nation.

In November of 2005, the Forest Service recommended the designation of additional acreage as wilderness in its management plan for the White Mountain National Forest. The bill that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, incorporates the recommendations of this management plan by designating some 23,700 acres in the area of the Wild River as wilderness, and adding another 10,800 acres to the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. This land would remain as White Mountain National Forest land under the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by our New Hampshire colleagues, Representative Charles Bass and Representative Jeb Bradley.

With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress set out to permanently preserve areas of natural beauty for the public to enjoy; areas ``where the earth and its community of life are

untrammeled by man.'' New Hampshire was one of the original States in 1964 to have wilderness designated with the establishment of the Great Gulf Wilderness, and it reflects the view in our State that Granite Staters place a premium on safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. In New Hampshire, we presently have four wilderness areas comprising more than 102,800 acres; and with the passage of this bill, we will expand one current wilderness area and create a fifth.

In New Hampshire, we have a tradition of multiple use for the consideration of our forest lands. In the White Mountain National Forest, it is generally understood that decisions affecting the forest are vetted thoroughly and that consensus is the guideline by which policies are implemented. Indeed, the development of the White Mountain National Forest Management Plan is one of the few times in the last 30 years that the final decision on how a particular National Forest will be managed over the next 15 years was not subject to an administrative appeal by concerned citizens.

As my colleagues know, wilderness areas consist of Federal lands that are permanently reserved from such activities as mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction. By law, the establishment of new wilderness must be approved by Congress. That presents a unique responsibility on the part of lawmakers to reflect the views of community leaders, residents, visitors and other interested parties in designating wilderness. Given the consensus approach they undertook in their decision-making process for the White Mountain National Forest, we chose to pattern our legislation on the recommendations set forth by the Forest Service.

One need only experience the beauty of the White Mountain National Forest once to understand the need to preserve it for future generations. The Forest Service has done an admirable job in putting together a Forest Management Plan that all can support. I am pleased to introduce this measure with Senator Gregg, and I encourage my colleagues to give quick consideration to our legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Boxer-Smith-Durbin STOP-TB Now Act of 2006. This bill would authorize additional resources to fight tuberculosis, a deadly infectious disease that knows no borders.

In January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a long-term strategy was developed to cut in half the number of TB cases and deaths. This Global Plan to Stop TB estimates that the 10-year cost to control tuberculosis is $56 billion, including $47 billion to detect and treat TB and $9 billion for additional research and development. If this plan is implemented over the next 10 years, it is estimated that it will save the lives of 14 million people throughout the world.

Tuberculosis is a deadly disease, especially in the developing world. Tuberculosis kills nearly 2 million people per year--one person every 15 seconds. One-third of the world is infected with the germ that causes TB and an estimated 8.8 million individuals will develop active TB each year. Tuberculosis is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age and of people who are HIV-positive.

While developing nations are most heavily impacted by TB, there is also a concern here at home. It is estimated that 10-15 million people in the United States are infected with the germ that causes TB. And, California has more TB cases than any other State in the country. Ten of the top twenty U.S. metro areas for TB case rates are in California; San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Fresno, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, Ventura, Vallejo, and Oakland.

This funding is a wise investment for our Nation. A recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a $35 million investment in the health system of Mexico to fight TB would yield a savings to the U.S. taxpayer of $108 million in terms of reduced TB healthcare costs domestically.

I have been working with Senator Smith to fight the spread of international tuberculosis since 1999. I am proud that he has been such a strong partner on this issue. And, I am grateful for the support of Senator Durbin, a champion on the issue of global AIDS and other infectious diseases.

The Boxer-Smith-Durbin bill is consistent with the Global Plan to Stop TB, including the goal to reduce by half the international tuberculosis death and disease burden by 2015. It also sets a goal to detect at least 70 percent of cases of infection tuberculosis, and the cure of at least 85 percent of the cases detected.

The bill authorizes not less than $225 million for fiscal year 2007 and not less than $260 million for fiscal year 2008 for foreign assistance programs that combat international TB. It also creates a separate authorization of $30 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat international TB.

This bill will not only save lives, it will help reverse a troubling trend--the emergence of multi drug-resistant tuberculosis caused by inconsistent and incomplete treatment. In the U.S., a standard case of TB takes 6 months to cure at the cost of $2,000 per patient. A case of multi drug-resistant TB can take up to 2 years to treat costing as much as $1 million per patient.

TB kills more people than any other curable disease in the world. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2007 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 818. This status report is current through November 8, 2006.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by H. Con. Res. 376. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a).

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2007 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.