Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Montana. The reason we filed that amendment on Monday was for this particular reason: The FAA controls all air space. Just like we found out a little while ago, they only have one area where a waiver has been granted, and this instructs that the Secretary of Homeland Security will work with the FAA, and the FAA will work with the other agency in order to allow this pilot program to move forward. It has already been established in Great Falls. That northern border security that we already have there and this pilot program can move forward with the

Mr. President, today I am introducing the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006. In 1903, Secretary of Interior Hitchcock authorized construction of the Milk River Project as one of the first five reclamation projects under the new reclamation service. Two years later, construction was authorized for the St. Mary Diversion Facilities. Completed in 1915, the Milk River Project and the St. Mary Diversion Facilities have been in operation for nearly 100 years with minimum repairs and improvements.

The Milk River Project and the accompanying St. Mary Diversion Facilities are known as the Lifeline of the Hi-Line. The St. Mary and Milk River basins are home to approximately 70,000 people with a meager per capita income of approximately $19,500. Most of these people depend--directly or indirectly--on the project and would be

dramatically impacted by its failure and the loss of water.

The Milk River is the backbone of the region's agricultural economy. It provides water to irrigate over 110,000 acres on approximately 660 farms. This project provides municipal water to approximately 14,000 people. Fisheries, recreation, tourism, water quality, and wildlife are all impacted by the water flow.

But now the St. Mary Diversion Facilities and the Milk River Project are facing catastrophic failure. The steel siphons have leaks and slope stability problems. Landslides along the canal and the deteriorated condition of the structure make the project an unreliable water source.

As authorized in 1903, the Milk River Project is operated as a single-use irrigation project. Since completion, nearly 100 percent of the cost to operate and maintain the diversion infrastructure has been borne by irrigators. The average annual O & M cost from 1998 to 2003 was $420,000, of which irrigators were responsible for 98 percent. In addition, irrigators are responsible for reimbursing reclamation for the initial construction costs of the diversion facilities. Maintenance costs have increased with the accelerating deterioration of the aging facilities.

In 2003, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group was formed to address the pressing needs of the system. This broad coalition of interests came together to find workable solutions. This legislation is a result of their efforts and dedication.

The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006 will provide a feasible and comprehensive approach to rehabilitating the aging and deteriorating infrastructure while still meeting the needs of the folks in Montana. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006. In 1903, Secretary of Interior Hitchcock authorized construction of the Milk River Project as one of the first five reclamation projects under the new reclamation service. Two years later, construction was authorized for the St. Mary Diversion Facilities. Completed in 1915, the Milk River Project and the St. Mary Diversion Facilities have been in operation for nearly 100 years with minimum repairs and improvements.

The Milk River Project and the accompanying St. Mary Diversion Facilities are known as the Lifeline of the Hi-Line. The St. Mary and Milk River basins are home to approximately 70,000 people with a meager per capita income of approximately $19,500. Most of these people depend--directly or indirectly--on the project and would be

dramatically impacted by its failure and the loss of water.

The Milk River is the backbone of the region's agricultural economy. It provides water to irrigate over 110,000 acres on approximately 660 farms. This project provides municipal water to approximately 14,000 people. Fisheries, recreation, tourism, water quality, and wildlife are all impacted by the water flow.

But now the St. Mary Diversion Facilities and the Milk River Project are facing catastrophic failure. The steel siphons have leaks and slope stability problems. Landslides along the canal and the deteriorated condition of the structure make the project an unreliable water source.

As authorized in 1903, the Milk River Project is operated as a single-use irrigation project. Since completion, nearly 100 percent of the cost to operate and maintain the diversion infrastructure has been borne by irrigators. The average annual O & M cost from 1998 to 2003 was $420,000, of which irrigators were responsible for 98 percent. In addition, irrigators are responsible for reimbursing reclamation for the initial construction costs of the diversion facilities. Maintenance costs have increased with the accelerating deterioration of the aging facilities.

In 2003, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group was formed to address the pressing needs of the system. This broad coalition of interests came together to find workable solutions. This legislation is a result of their efforts and dedication.

The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006 will provide a feasible and comprehensive approach to rehabilitating the aging and deteriorating infrastructure while still meeting the needs of the folks in Montana. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. President, I rise today, Flag Day, in support of S.J. Res. 12, which seeks to establish a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of our flag.

From the time of our Revolutionary War to this very moment, Old Glory has been the undying symbol of our Nation. While it is a symbol that has many different meanings to many different people, it is the one symbol that represents the hopes and dreams of millions of people who have fled tyranny in another land and fought to preserve freedom here at home. More than anything else, it represents the selfless sacrifices of previous generations who have willingly laid down their lives so that we can live in the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world.

As a Marine, I served under our flag as I proudly do now as the Senator from the great State of Montana. Thus, I know a thing or two about what our flag stands for--as does most every veteran who served and sacrificed under our flag, or who has fired and been fired upon in combat defending what our flag stands for. Countless millions of American soldiers have done and continue to do the same. As we speak, there are over 14,000 Montanans in the service of their country, 1,365 of whom are now serving overseas.

It is simply an insult to these brave Americans that the sacrifices they have made in the name of liberty under the American flag are spit on by people who would burn, trample, or otherwise willfully desecrate our flag. While we rightly honor the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives, we do not yet honor the symbol for which those sacrifices were made by protecting our flag. That is why we need a constitutional amendment.

Some argue that that it is a form of speech. However, it is sad that someone cannot defend their arguments or clearly state their national hatred without setting a fire? Frankly, if the totality of your argument can be summed with gasoline and matches, then you just do not have much of an argument to begin with.

Even more striking is that these people, devoid of new ideas, resort to tactics used by our enemies abroad. Look at the video of those who would destroy us--protests in Iran, for example. Our enemies burn our flag while calling for our deaths because they know it is our symbol They want to destroy us and have no respect for our freedoms and way of life. Sadly, there are some in this country that, while they may or may not share that goal, do share that tactic.

We owe it to the generations who came before us and to the brave men and women who protect us now to protect the symbol which meant so much to them. Far too many have sacrificed too much serving under our flag for me to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That is why I see it as my duty to voice my support on behalf of all Montanans for a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the events of the past week. We have received word that the leading terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the mastermind of countless brutal attacks and taking lives of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis, was killed. This has been a long time coming. I commend those who worked tirelessly over the past year to finally see the fruits of their labors. Their dedication has saved countless lives. But that does not mean the war on terror is over. We still have a lot of work to do. We know the terrorists never give up. The greatest weapon they have is, of course, fear.

Last weekend, we also heard of a terrorist plot uncovered in Canada. Fortunately, those behind that plot were arrested before they could carry out their plans to murder the Canadian Prime Minister.

We are getting better at our intelligence. We are stopping these attacks. Of course, this will continue to be our mission, and for the people who are in the business of short-circuiting these plots, their job may never end. Terrorists will stop at nothing to incite fear in the minds and hearts of Americans and free-loving people all over the world.

We will fight as long as it takes to defeat them. Part of that fight is ensuring our security at home. My State of Montana borders Canada. In our part of the country, I like to say there is a lot of dirt between light bulbs. That makes it difficult to effectively patrol the border between my State and our friends to the north. Next time, will terrorists enter somewhere along that 550-mile border that my State shares with Canada? What makes it even more difficult is we are used to going back and forth between my State and Canada. We have farmers who farm on both sides of the border. They own farms in Canada, and they also own farms in Montana. Of course, we like the freedom of that movement.

The arrests last weekend have proven that illegal activity happens on our northern border, just like the problems we have on our southern border. I have said many times during the discussion of the immigration bill that we must know who is coming in this country and what for, and we also cannot have any credibility with the American people until we secure the border.

The Senate recently passed a massive immigration bill. There were a number of border security measures in the legislation--recommendations for a security fence, using the National Guard as backup and technical support, and other features. There were also provisions to enhance the security of our northern border, although I think even those could be stronger.

Most notably, however, this legislation did something else with which the American people do not agree: this legislation gave a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens. For this reason, I simply could not support the bill. Not only is it bad policy, but it sends the message that entering this country illegally is somehow OK.

Folks in my State have said: No amnesty for illegal aliens. They have been saying that until they are blue in the face. They feel strongly about it, so strongly that I received bricks in the mail with big letters on them: Secure the border and build the wall. I am not a big fan of walls. They have never had a history of success. But nonetheless, it sends a strong message on the things we should be doing.

It is a plain fact that illegal activity happens every day on our borders. We are in a great project in the State of Montana called the Montana Meth Project. We are finding out that meth houses have been shut down. Law enforcement has done their job in our State. What we are finding now is meth coming in from outside our borders. Crystal meth is one of the worst fights we have in our State. Other criminal activities pose a threat to the safety of local communities and to our national security as a whole. I know folks in my State have seen this happen firsthand.

Up on the hi-line, border agents in Havre, MT, have arrested illegal immigrants from as many as 35 different countries. Many of these illegal immigrants are found hiding on trains as they pass through Havre and several other towns on the hi-line of Montana. In February, a fugitive thought to be armed and dangerous led the Montana Highway Patrol on two high-speed chases near Kalispell, MT, before being apprehended. He was trying to escape to Canada. Last October, Border Patrol agents spotted a man driving in a stolen pickup toward the Canadian border outside of Cut Bank, MT. After a standoff, the man was shot by officers acting in self-defense.

I know my colleagues from States that share international borders, northern and southern, have stories like this. They can go on forever. We have illegal aliens still flooding into this country through our southern border every day and, yes, some through the northern border. It is not too much to ask for our law enforcement agencies to find, detain, and deport those who have broken the law. It is overwhelming.

It is amazing to me that we can so diligently pursue terrorists as dangerous and as murderous as al-Zarqawi in Iraq and be successful, yet we do not meet with the same success here in this country. When it comes to our own borders, our own immigration policies, mistakes continue to be made both on the ground and here in this Congress.

More importantly, when we allow illegal aliens to stay, what kind of a message does that send to the rest of the world about our immigration policy? If you come here illegally, just wait it out. That is the message we are sending now. We will give you amnesty eventually. It seems that 20 years from now, it will be amnesty once again for even more of those who would enter this country illegally. The 1986 immigration reform act didn't work. Basically, the bill that recently passed the Senate--not with my support--almost mirrors the 1986 act. What good is history if we don't learn the lesson?

As the House and Senate come together to conference on this legislation, I advise taking into account what the American people are telling us. They are telling us what they want, and they are very clear with the message. Just as we continue our efforts in Iraq and our fight in this war on terrorism abroad, we must also ensure a secure border and sound immigration policy at home. There is no way we can

skirt the issue. It burns in the hearts of everybody in my State. They are very clear about the message. You do first things first and second things second.

The first thing we have to do to gain any credibility with the American people is to secure the border, knowing what the cost will be and knowing the job that is ahead of us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 8, a bill that would permanently repeal the death tax. This burden is especially harmful to many Montana farms, ranches, and small businesses. As we have heard many times in the past several days, the value of a person's estate is measured by its fair market value at the time of death.

In Montana, as you can imagine, land value has appreciated significantly in recent years. When the death tax hits, often part of the ranch or farm must be sold off to pay federal taxes. The death tax is not only about the wealthy--it harms working families in Montana who have farmed or ranched on the same land for generations, but now, due to no fault of their own, are forced to give up their way of life just to pay the tax bill.

Land appreciation in Montana is a double-edged sword. While soaring property values benefit sellers and the

local tax base, for those with no intention to sell their property to the highest bidder, the death tax helps make a difficult decision even easier. We already face high out-migration from frontier counties in Montana. It is difficult enough to keep younger generations involved in the family business, but even harder when a death sets in motion a series of unpleasant financial events, including payment of this burdensome tax. I have been a strong supporter of the permanent, full repeal of the death tax. It isn't fair to families who have worked all of their lives to build assets and a way of life that then is taken away. At the very least, the Federal Government should not punish small businesses, farms, and ranches for filling such an important role vital to our economic well-being. I have spent a lot of time on these ranches, and I am here to tell you that these Montanans are some of the hardest working people in the country. By and large, they are not multimillionaires who purchase dude ranches as a pleasant distraction from the hustle and bustle of city life. These are folks who spend a lot of hot days in June swathing hay to make sure the cows are fed throughout the winter. They invest blood, sweat, and tears, often for a dwindling profit. For example, let's look at the case of Mary Jo Lane from Livingston, MT. She wrote to me, saying:

My husband Tom operates the family ranch east of Livingston

on the Yellowstone River. My father-in-law, Tom Lane, Sr. is

the epitome of the American success story. His father was a

first generation American and his mother was an Irish

immigrant. He started ranching on his family's ranch out of

Three Forks with his brother and became a cattle buyer.

Through much hard work, determination and moderate living,

along with a little Irish luck, he was able to buy the

Livingston ranch in 1972, and his brother took over the ranch

in Three Forks. Over the last thirty years Tom Sr. has been

able to put together a ranching operation large enough to

keep all four of his sons working on the family ranch. In

addition to my husband on the Livingston ranch, his brothers

operate ranches in Cascade, Harlowton and Ismay. In 1972, I

am sure he never imagined what would happen to land values in

this area. The ultra-wealthy and celebrities have been

driving up land values which agriculturally we can never gain

enough income to support. This would be great for anyone

interested in selling their land, but it puts a huge burden

on the family rancher interested in maintaining the dream of

passing the land down to their kids and staying true to the

family heritage. With these new purchasers gaining land for

purely aesthetic reasons, with no consideration to generating

income from the land, we just can't keep up with rising

estate costs. In our case, we already know it is not a matter

of if we have to sell a piece of land, but which piece to

sell that will have the least effect on the operation. This

issue is not purely agricultural; it flows into so many other

segments of society. As you know, this land is like our

factory and when part of the factory is sold, that reduces

production which in turn reduces income and reduces taxes

paid to the government. No matter how much the land is

valued, it still requires about 25 acres to carry one cow/

calf pair. Consider too, what selling out does to the small

ag communities in the state that rely on ranchers to buy

their farming implements, parts, fuel, etc. etc. Estate taxes

have a direct impact on the environment as well. Ranches and

farms keep the Western land open, limiting development and

giving wildlife and people room to roam. Many people come

from all over America to visit our beautiful state, but they

don't appreciate the fact that the family rancher is paying

quite a price to keep it that way.

This experience shows how the death tax has affected just one working Montana ranch, and makes a powerful case for permanent and full repeal of the death tax. Another Montanan called the death tax ``un-American'' since ``ranches are having to be sold in part or entirety to pay the estate tax.'' This point is well taken--the death tax is not levied only against the rich, but against hard-working Montanans. Robert Rumney from Cascade, MT, wrote:

My father has been building this family ranch for almost 50

years, and I have been working with him full time for over 25

years. This winter, we have been updating our estate

planning, so that my son and I will be able to continue to

work and live on this family ranch. We did research on fair

market value of ranch land, and came up with a very

conservative estimate of over $10,000,000 value. This

included land, cattle, and presently owned equipment. All of

these are absolutely necessary to continue to operate this

cattle ranch. With the recreational buyers driving up the

price of land far beyond its actual agricultural value, it is

becoming virtually impossible to pass on a long-time family

ag-operation to the next generation. What is this going to do

to our nation? What is the purpose of eliminating the family-

owned farm or ranch? The affluent buyers are not operating

these ranches as producers, but rather using them as private

hunting and fishing retreats. How are we going to feed our

nation? The estate tax of any kind is going to affect all of

us, not just the poor rancher or farmer who is trying to pass

along his hard work to the next generation. Please don't

allow this to happen. Please vote to eliminate the estate

tax.

Robert's letter points to an inevitable result stemming from the death tax. If our working farms and ranches are taxed out of existence, the economic impact would extend far beyond these families, and would affect domestic agricultural production. This statement may well be a reality should the 55 percent tax rate come back in full force in 2011 without any congressional action. The death tax is unfair because it represents essentially a double taxation. Ms. Merelee Manuel from Winnett, MT, explained to me:

Dear Senator Conrad Burns,

I'm deeply concerned about the repeal of the Death

Inheritance Tax. I want to explain what happened to the

Gjerde Ranch. I was married to Bud Gjerde. We lost his Dad,

John Gjerde. We paid the death tax on the ranch when his

mother Margaret Gjerde inherited the ranch. She passed away

and death tax was paid again. Bud and I bought the ranch, and

then Bud passed away Feb. 3, 1975. The death tax was paid

again. This took place in a time span of 10 to 12 years. The

death tax was paid 3 times! We were NOT RICH. We saved and

scraped and did without so that we could put some savings

away for a rainy day. Guess what? It had to be used to pay

Death Inheritance Tax. This is the most unfair tax of all.

Income tax was being paid on this ranch every year. Please

don't think it's just the rich who benefit from not having to

pay death inheritance tax.

I think it's fair to say that Federal share of this ranch in Winnett was far larger than it should have been. As this letter shows, it's becoming more and more difficult to maintain the family farm in the wake of such excessive taxation. The death tax not only poses hardship on Montana's farms and ranches, but on a variety of other small businesses. Donald Dulle, Jr., runs the Flathead Beverage Company in Kalispell, MT. In a letter to me, he said:

I am counting on you to provide permanent relief from the

death tax so I may plan for the future of my business and my

family. Evidence has shown that a mere one-third of family-

owned business survive the next generation. Too often

liquidation is the only choice for family members who have

worked side by side with parents and siblings to create a

business of value in order to provide certainty for

generations to come. I urge you and your colleagues,

Democrats and Republicans alike, to put aside your

differences and demonstrate the leadership for which you were

elected by putting America's family-owned businesses first.

The damaging impact the death tax has on Montana's small businesses and estate planning is widespread. This experience is not limited to just a few Montana businesses but extends across the country. In the Statement of Administration Policy dated June 8, 2006, the administration notes that ``Fundamentally, the death tax penalizes savings and risk-taking, reduces capital formation in the economy, and ultimately, reduces living standards . . . The time to fix this problem is now, so American families can plan for the future without worrying about whether the death tax will reemerge.''

For those of you who may be familiar with the band the Beatles, they had a song called the ``Taxman.'' Though the lyrics were written in 1966, they still remain especially true today, even with a reference to payment of taxes at death. The lyrics say, ``Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes.''

In the Senate, we have tried to provide relief for small businesses. Unfortunately, we were prevented from continuing work on small business health plans. I urge my colleagues to support the full and permanent repeal of the death tax to provide basic fairness to these small businesses that are the engine that drives not only Montana's economy, but the Nation's as well.

Mr. President, I am generally hesitant to amend the Constitution; there are few things as permanent as a constitutional amendment, and it is something that clearly should not be done lightly. However, when activist judges repeatedly take steps to overrule the clear voice of a majority of the people, we are left with very few options. As we have seen over the past several years, Federal and State judges have time and time again struck down traditional marriage protections laws--laws overwhelmingly approved by voter ballot initiatives. This is simply unacceptable, and therefore I will vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment in order to ensure that traditional marriage laws approved by the voters in a majority of the States are protected.

In my State of Montana, the people have overwhelmingly spoken on this issue on more than one occasion. In 1997, the Montana Legislature passed a State law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Then in 2004, the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative by 67 percent which amended the Montana Constitution to state: ``Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this State.'' Nationally, 19 States have adopted similar State constitutional amendments, and 26 more have statutes designed to protect traditional marriage.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming consensus of the people is not good enough for some. As we have seen over the past several years, a handful of activist judges have taken it upon themselves to decide what should constitute marriage. By now, we are all well aware of the actions taken by the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. In that State, the court essentially mandated same-sex marriage. More recently, a Federal district court invalidated a Nebraska constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage that had earlier been adopted with over 70 percent approval by Nebraska voters. As we debate this amendment, legal challenges are currently being brought against democratically approved traditional marriage laws in nine States. I fear it is only a matter of time before similar challenges are brought against the marriage protections approved by the voters of Montana.

Personally, I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, the ultimate decision in an issue as important as what constitutes marriage must fully reflect the desire of the people, not just those of us in Washington and certainly not that of a handful of judges. Therefore, the solution is clear: we must send the States a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage laws, protects the will of the people, and prevents judicial activism. No other process is guaranteed to prevent the redefinition of marriage.

Mr. President, I would like to lend my support to S. 1112, the College 529 InvEST Act of 2005, which I cosponsored today. A college education is more important today then it has ever been before. As the intrinsic value of a college education has increased, so too has the financial costs associated with it. In the last 10 years, the cost of a 4-year college education at a public institution increased 59 percent, while in public institutions it has grown by 42 percent. This increased cost dramatically outpaces average family income growth during the same time period.

It is not surprising that Montanans have expressed concerns about how they will pay such a hefty pricetag for their children's futures. It is our responsibility in the Senate to make saving for college manageable for many families who also struggle to save for their own retirement and may live from paycheck to paycheck. Federal programs can defray some of the costs, but this alone cannot pay the bills. Tax relief passed in 2001 permitted States to implement their own plans, creating a tax benefit for those families who chose to invest in them. Since 1998, 12,539 qualified tuition program accounts total more than $146 million in Montana alone.

Without congressional action, the tax benefits of these plans will expire in 2010. Withdrawals made after 2010 will be subjected to taxation that means in just a little over 3 years from now, parents who invested in these 529 plans for the tax benefits will face an unanticipated tax liability. This sunset provision casts serious doubt on the likelihood a family would set up a 529 plan given such uncertainty. S. 1112 would make the tax provisions of these important plans permanent, providing much-needed certainty to parents and their children heading off to college in the future.

Mr. President, I assume the manager of the bill is inviting us to proceed with our amendment.

And the Boxer amendment has been laid aside.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens and Senator Inhofe be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. President, this is a pretty straightforward amendment. Throughout this debate on immigration, we have heard how illegal immigration affects practically every aspect of our life. What many may not realize is that illegal immigration also affects the very foundation of this country--our system of representation, especially in the House of Representatives.

Currently, the policy of this Government is to count illegal aliens in the U.S. census and to use those numbers for reapportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Studies and census data also show that most illegal immigrants reside in just a few areas of the country. And just by being there, illegal aliens have a great deal of influence on how the seats of the House of Representatives are distributed among the States.

I ask the manager of the bill how he wants to proceed on this amendment?

That is correct. This directs the Census Bureau to take a study and get the true impact of how counting illegal aliens affects the reapportionment in the House of Representatives.

It is not.

That is correct.

I thank the managers of this legislation. I felt all along that we should look at this just like we looked at employers. So I thank the managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 4038

Mr. President, in 2002 Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, providing important safeguards against unscrupulous accounting practices. In the wake of significant corporate accounting scandals, Congress created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It restricted the actions of accounting firms who perform audits--specifically preventing them from undertaking other activities which lead to conflicts of interest. At the end of the day, this legislation is important to protect shareholders and employees from dishonest accounting practices that can cost them their futures and, in extreme cases, even their businesses.

Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley requires the Commission to create rules for annual reports and to prescribe internal control reports to ensure that financial reporting is accurate and ethical. The goals of this provision are warranted but the burden on smaller publicly held companies has come at a great cost.

Unfortunately, they are also incredibly and unnecessarily burdensome for small- and medium-sized businesses. In my State of Montana, it is these small- and medium-sized businesses that fuel the engine of our economy. Small businesses are collectively the largest employer in Montana, and it has always been important to me that the Federal Government consider the impact its regulatory policies have on small businesses.

For this reason, I am proud to be added as an original cosponsor of legislation that will reduce some of the burden facing small businesses, specifically in section 404. S. 2824, the Competitive and Open Markets that Protect and Enhance Treatment of Entrepreneurs Act, or COMPETE Act, will not remove the important safeguards that Sarbanes- Oxley created, but it will increase the flexibility of the law to allow businesses to comply with the law with less hardship.

In 2004, the average cost for a public company to be public was $3.4 million. One out of every three dollars spent were for audits performed even if there was little or no value of those audits to the investors. It defies common sense to have the same requirements for the largest public companies as we do for the smallest, and the COMPETE Act will offer small- and medium-sized companies the option to comply with standard internal control guidelines with enhanced internal controls, greater transparency, and specific restrictions against conflicts of interest.

One of the things I have learned here in Washington, DC, is that one- size-fits-all solutions don't work. American innovation is too diverse to encompass through inflexible regulations. When we passed Sarbanes- Oxley, our intentions were to protect investors and employees from the minority of companies that abused accounting practices to mislead their shareholders. This intention remains important, but in the past years I have heard from Montanans about the unforeseen and unintended consequences of this legislation. The COMPETE Act can sort these out, keeping the goals of Sarbanes-Oxley intact, while increasing the flexibility needed to make the regulation as harmless as possible to honest businesses.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Murkowski in introducing the Rural Physicians Relief Act of 2006. This legislation is intended to bring needed relief to doctors in rural America.

As those of us from rural States are well aware, our constituents face many unique challenges when seeking quality health care. Our populations are small and spread out across extremely remote areas. Incidentally, the costs of operating even the most basic medical practice are simply too much for many physicians. As a result, many areas of our States tend to be some of the most medically underserved areas in the Nation.

To give you an idea of the situation in Montana, nearly 286,000 or one third of my constituents live in what are known as frontier areas. According to the United States Census Bureau, these are counties with fewer than seven people per square mile. That means that 46 of Montana's 56 counties are classified as frontier--24 of those have fewer than two people per square mile and 10 of those have less than one per square mile. However, what is even more striking is 9 of these frontier counties have no doctors at all, and 10 others have fewer than 3. Consequently, a large percentage of Montanans must travel great distances simply to get basic medical treatment.

The legislation that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today seeks to alleviate this problem. It will provide incentives to encourage physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas. Specifically, it would give a physician who is a Primary health services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she provides services in a frontier area. Furthermore, physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas would also be eligible for the tax credit.

All too often many of our constituents are at a disadvantage simply because of where they live. While this legislation will not completely solve the problem, it will go a long way toward bringing quality health care to those in rural America.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming, a man who lives south of the 45th parallel from our State, for the work he has done on this legislation.

We have been asked a lot of times what drives us on this legislation. I have been on the Small Business Committee now for three terms. We tried to pass an association health plan for the last 12 to 15 years. Even Senator Bumpers, the senior Senator from Arkansas back in those days, worked on a bill, and his own side wouldn't let him complete that exercise.

The landscape has changed a little bit, and the numbers we are getting

now are much larger than they were, say, 10 years ago: 27 million working Americans are uninsured; 63 percent are either self-employed or work for a small business. For small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, 34 percent of those are uninsured. And for firms with 10 to 24 workers, 27 percent of them are uninsured.

Then I looked at my own State and looked at those numbers, and they are compelling numbers. In Montana, 60 percent of small businesses with fewer than 10 employees do not offer health insurance. That is a big number, 60 percent. Incidentally, most employers in Montana are small businesses. They make up the vast majority of our working force. They are people who run small firms that we typically think of as small business, but there is another small business--and some are a little bit bigger and can be defined as a big business--that we tend to overlook, and they are the people who live on farms and ranches across this country. They have the same desire and same needs for insurance coverage.

As I talk to my folks who live in rural Montana, ranch families simply cannot afford health insurance. Those who can, typically carry a high deductible catastrophic policy and then hope they will be able to weather the health care costs should tragedy strike. Consequently, many ranch families must work second jobs, and do, simply to get health insurance benefits.

Furthermore, very few farm and ranch owners provide their farm workers with health insurance. This isn't because they don't wish to provide that coverage. It is because providing such coverage is unaffordable. One ranch family my staff spoke with currently spends $2,000 a month for coverage of their family of four. As expensive as it is, they can't afford to go without the coverage as one of the members was in a ranch accident which confined him to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

Consequently, these hard-working Americans are forced to rely on already burdened emergency rooms and health clinics. These small hospitals in rural Montana, some of which we define as critical access hospitals, could not have kept their doors open had it not been for a redefinition of critical access hospitals, telemedicine, and the ability for people to afford health insurance. I fear if we do not begin to seriously address this issue of the uninsured, particularly in rural areas, many of these small critical access facilities cannot survive.

I have heard their argument on the other side. Why would they put at peril health care facilities in rural America? And that is what they would be doing should we continue to do nothing. Therefore, the choice we must make this week could not be clearer. Do we prefer to give small business and individual proprietors the ability to offer their employees health benefits, or do we prefer to continue to limit their ability to offer benefits by Government regulations--mandates?

People like to have a choice. They don't want to go to the store and just buy one brand. It is an easy question for me to answer. The farmers and ranchers and small businesses of Montana--and Senator Enzi has almost the same makeup in his State as we have in our State. Agriculture plays a huge role in Wyoming and Montana. In fact, it contributes more to the GDP than any other industry. So it is not fair to those hard-working folks in rural areas to deny them the benefits that large corporations enjoy or unions and, yes, those of us who serve in this Senate. It is incumbent on us to get these business health plans in place, and now.

As we have no doubt heard, one of the major criticisms of the bill is it allows small business health plans to avoid State-enacted insurance mandates. I don't think that is quite accurate. Specifically, some of the loudest critics allege this bill will cut off coverage for mammograms, childhood immunizations, supplies, colorectal cancer screening, and many other procedures. It is not true. It just isn't true. To use a scare tactic does not do much to further the debate on how we should approach this particular problem.

Studies have shown that health care plans cover these and other services regardless of State mandates. Members of the Senate need look no further than their own health benefits package to know this is the case. Federal employee health benefits plans are not subject to State mandates. Yet these plans provide comprehensive coverage for these services and often provide better coverage than would be covered under most State mandates.

I don't like to see small business characterized as this is a way to save money at the expense of their employees. Small businesspeople are closer to their employees. They understand their responsibilities better than anybody in the world of commerce because they are small, they are a family. That is why the owner has to take the same policy as the employee. You wouldn't even have to mandate that.

I can remember I started a small business and it stayed that way. It wasn't planned, but it did. We insured our employees, and yet my wife and I carried no insurance, and we had a growing family at that time. We did it for economic reasons. But we had the responsibility to protect the folks who worked there.

Most plans cover essential services required by State mandates regardless of whether they are mandated. So why? Because it is not only good policy, but it is good business. For instance, plans generally cover breast cancer screenings regardless of State mandates because it is far cheaper than having to pay for a mastectomy. Plans generally cover screenings for colorectal cancer regardless of State mandates because it is far cheaper to catch it early. Plans cover diabetes treatment regardless of State mandates because it is far less expensive than having to pay for all the maladies that can come about if you are not treated, such as blindness and, yes, amputations.

It is far better to have childhood immunizations in your plan than pay for the more serious diseases that may develop if you are not immunized.

It just makes good sense if you want to keep the employee around and their family that you have grown to know because when you run a small business, it is a personal thing.

We have crafted this approach--and it is not a panacea to cure everything, but at least it is a step in the right direction to cover people who have no insurance today.

It is impossible for small business associations to offer uniform health insurance benefits packages affordably on a regional or national basis. It is hard. If we try to do anything around here, we try to pass legislation that is one size fits all. That is pretty tough to do. Circumstances in Maryland or Virginia are probably a little bit different than they are when you get west of the Mississippi River, especially in my State of Montana.

For instance, what is required for diabetes coverage in Montana is not the same as is required in the States of my friends from Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Thus, the association that offers benefits to small businesses in this region must adhere to the different mandates in each State. Having to fashion a plan to meet the mandates for each State drives up the cost. What we are trying to do is get our arms around the cost of it. It is impossible to offer a plan without first addressing cost. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, these State-imposed benefit mandates raise the cost of insurance and cause countless Americans to go with no coverage at all.

Moreover, some of those mandates in certain States are for coverage procedures that the vast majority of Americans would not want and probably do not even know are offered. Acupuncture, for example, is a mandated benefit in some States. Some people may benefit from this service, but the vast majority of Americans do not. This is but one example of the hundreds and hundreds of mandates throughout this country for services many do not realize they are covered for and would not avail themselves of if they did. Yet the cost of covering this and other procedures is paid by everyone in that State due to those mandates.

It is a simple thing, insurance. I don't think I have heard it used on the floor since this debate got started. Simply put, when costs go up, coverages go down. It is a simple fact in the underwriting business.

So by allowing the businesses to band together and pool their resources, thereby giving them the same bargaining power large corporations enjoy, this bill, S. 1955, will lower cost

and improve access for millions and millions of Americans who do not have it today. This bill will not create a perfect health plan for all Americans, but that is not what we are talking about. This bill will increase the number of Americans with health insurance. This body can debate endlessly on what the perfect health plan is, but that does little good for the employees of small businesses who currently have none at all. So the choice is clear: Do we increase the amount of working American families with health insurance or do we let partisanship rule the day, as it has for too many years? The American people need better and they deserve better, and this bill will give them better as we move it along.

S. 1955 will lower health costs. All the figures we see tell us that. More importantly, it will give many working Americans affordable health benefits, something they don't have today. My farmers, my ranchers, and the small businesses in small towns across America, which are the backbone of our economy, deserve the same rights as the Fortune 500 companies, unions, and yes, even us, the Government.

It is time to act, even though it may not be perfect. Perfection should never get in the way of doing something for small businesses and their employees.

I thank my friend from Wyoming for allowing me this time.

Mr. CORNYN addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Mike Campbell, a fellow in my office, during the debate on S. 1955.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for legislation introduced in the Senate which has a significant impact on more than 800 small businesses in Montana and hundreds of thousands more around the country. S. 722 would reduce the tax burden on every barrel of beer, which currently stands at $18. Prior to 1991, this tax was only half of the cost today.

This tax was originally enacted as a means to pay for the U.S. Civil War. The lesson is that there is no such thing as a short-term tax. The tax on beer, which accounts for 44 percent of a bottle of beer and a whopping 80 percent cost of a six-pack, has been steadily increasing since 1991.

The taxation of beer falls unfairly on Montanans who can least afford to pay it. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice indicates that people whose family's income is in the top 20 percent pay five times less in excise beer tax than those whose family is in the bottom 20 percent.

The Tax Code was intended to raise revenue for the Federal Government. It should not be used to influence behavior or personal choice. This excessive tax on beer is not efficient at raising revenue, and the cost of each dollar imposed is much greater in terms of jobs lost and economic drag.

There are, of course, concerns about the social costs of alcohol consumption. I am very sensitive to those concerns and am encouraged by the reductions in drunk driving and alcohol abuse. But the fact is, this tax punishes all beer consumers instead of the minority who act dangerously. In any case, these problems must be addressed directly through specific legislation rather than indirectly through the Tax Code, which is already complicated enough.

Mr. President, because this tax has grown so much since 1991 and because it not only affects beer wholesalers and resellers but hard- working Montanans who enjoy these products responsibly, I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation in the Senate.