[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2469-S2473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 2461. A bill to prohibit United States assistance to develop or 
promote any rail connections or railway-related connections that 
traverse or connect Baku, Azerbaijan, Tbilisi, Georgia, and Kars, 
Turkey, and that specifically exclude cities in Armenia; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
block U.S. support for yet another anti-Armenian initiative.
  In numerous cases over the last few years, the Turkish government has 
methodically sought to isolate Armenia economically, politically and 
socially. One of the most egregious examples was the imposition of a 
1993 blockade against Armenia in support of Azerbaijan's war against 
Karabakh Armenians.
  The Turkish government has routinely sought to exclude Armenia from 
projects that would benefit the economies of the countries of the South 
Caucasus. The latest example of this policy is the proposal to build a 
new rail line that would connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. 
Similar to the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, this rail link would specifically 
go around Armenia.
  Now, geographically, we all know that a pipeline or rail line that 
seeks to connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan would have to pass 
through Armenia. One would have to make a special effort to bypass 
Armenia.
  The U.S. should not endorse Turkey and Azerbaijan's politically 
motivated attempt to isolate Armenia.
  I therefore rise today in opposition to this plan, and to introduce 
legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Santorum, that would bar 
U.S. support and funding for a rail link connecting Georgia and Turkey, 
and which specifically excludes Armenia. This project is estimated to 
cost up to $800 million and would take three years to complete. The aim 
of this costly approach, as publicly stated by Azeri President Aliyev, 
is to isolate Armenia by enhancing the ongoing Turkish and Azerbaijani 
blockades and to keep the existing Turkey-Armenia-Georgia rail link 
shut down. This ill-conceived project runs counter to U.S. policy, 
ignores the standing Kars-Gyumri rail route, is politically and 
economically flawed and serves to destabilize the region.
  U.S. policy in the South Caucasus seeks to foster regional 
cooperation and economic integration and supports open borders and 
transport and communication corridors. U.S. support for this project 
would run counter to that policy which is why Senator Santorum and I 
are introducing this legislation today.
  We cannot continue to stoke the embers of regional conflict by 
supporting projects that deliberately exclude one of the region's most 
important members. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2462. A bill to permit startup partnership and S corporations to 
elect taxable years other than required years; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. 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

[[Page S2470]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2462

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Tax 
     Flexibility Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESSES ELECTION OF TAXABLE YEAR 
                   ENDING IN A MONTH FROM APRIL TO NOVEMBER.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter E of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to accounting 
     periods) is amended by inserting after section 444 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 444A. QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESSES ELECTION OF TAXABLE 
                   YEAR ENDING IN A MONTH FROM APRIL TO NOVEMBER.

       ``(a) General Rule.--A qualified small business may elect 
     to have a taxable year, other than the required taxable year, 
     which ends on the last day of any of the months of April 
     through November (or at the end of an equivalent annual 
     period (varying from 52 to 53 weeks)).
       ``(b) Years for Which Election Effective.--An election 
     under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall be made not later than the due date (including 
     extensions thereof) for filing the return of tax for the 
     first taxable year of the qualified small business, and
       ``(2) shall be effective for such first taxable year or 
     period and for all succeeding taxable years of such qualified 
     small business until such election is terminated under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(c) Termination.--
       ``(1) In general.--An election under subsection (a) shall 
     be terminated on the earliest of--
       ``(A) the first day of the taxable year following the 
     taxable year for which the entity fails to meet the gross 
     receipts test,
       ``(B) the date on which the entity fails to qualify as an S 
     corporation, or
       ``(C) the date on which the entity terminates.
       ``(2) Gross receipts test.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     an entity fails to meet the gross receipts test if the entity 
     fails to meet the gross receipts test of section 448(c).
       ``(3) Effect of termination.--An entity with respect to 
     which an election is terminated under this subsection shall 
     determine its taxable year for subsequent taxable years under 
     any other method that would be permitted under subtitle A.
       ``(4) Income inclusion and deduction rules for period after 
     termination.--If the termination of an election under 
     paragraph (1)(A) results in a short taxable year--
       ``(A) items relating to net profits for the period 
     beginning on the day after its last fiscal year-end and 
     ending on the day before the beginning of the taxable year 
     determined under paragraph (3) shall be includible in income 
     ratably over the 4 taxable years following the year of 
     termination, or (if fewer) the number of taxable years equal 
     to the fiscal years for which the election under this section 
     was in effect, and
       ``(B) items relating to net losses for such period shall be 
     deductible in the first taxable year after the taxable year 
     with respect to which the election terminated.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified small business.--The term `qualified small 
     business' means an entity--
       ``(A)(i) for which an election under section 1362(a) is in 
     effect for the first taxable year or period of such entity 
     and for all subsequent years, or
       ``(ii) which is treated as a partnership for the first 
     taxable year or period of such entity for Federal income tax 
     purposes,
       ``(B) which conducts an active trade or business or which 
     would qualify for an election to amortize start-up 
     expenditures under section 195, and
       ``(C) which is a start-up business.
       ``(2) Start-up business.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), 
     an entity shall be treated as a start-up business so long as 
     not more than 75 percent of the entity is owned by any person 
     or persons who previously conducted a similar trade or 
     business at any time within the 1-year period ending on the 
     date on which such entity is formed. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, a person and any other person bearing a 
     relationship to such person specified in section 267(b) or 
     707(b)(1) shall be treated as one person, and sections 267(b) 
     and 707(b)(1) shall be applied as if section 267(c)(4) 
     provided that the family of an individual consists of the 
     individual's spouse and the individual's children under the 
     age of 21.
       ``(3) Required taxable year.--The term `required taxable 
     year' has the meaning given to such term by section 444(e).
       ``(e) Tiered Structures.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     rules similar to the rules of section 444(d)(3) to eliminate 
     abuse of this section through the use of tiered 
     structures.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 444(a)(1) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``section,'' and inserting ``section 
     and section 444A''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter E of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 444 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 444A. Qualified small businesses election of taxable year ending 
              in a month from April to November.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 2463. A bill to designate as wilderness certain National Forest 
System land in the State of New Hampshire; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SUNUNU. 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

[[Page S2471]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2463

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``New Hampshire Wilderness Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New 
     Hampshire.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS.

       In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 
     seq.), the following Federal land in the State is designated 
     as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System:
       (1) Certain Federal land managed by the Forest Service, 
     comprising approximately 23,700 acres, as generally depicted 
     on the map entitled ``Proposed Wild River Wilderness--White 
     Mountain National Forest'', dated February 6, 2006, which 
     shall be known as the ``Wild River Wilderness''.
       (2) Certain Federal land managed by the Forest Service, 
     comprising approximately 10,800 acres, as generally depicted 
     on the map entitled ``Proposed Sandwich Range Wilderness 
     Additions--White Mountain National Forest'', dated February 
     6, 2006, and which are incorporated in the Sandwich Range 
     Wilderness, as designated by the New Hampshire Wilderness Act 
     of 1984 (Public Law 98-323; 98 Stat. 259).

     SEC. 4. MAP AND DESCRIPTION.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a 
     legal description of each wilderness area designated by 
     section 3 with the committees of appropriate jurisdiction in 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives.
       (b) Force and Effect.--A map and legal description filed 
     under subsection (a) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may 
     correct clerical and typographical errors in the map and 
     legal description.
       (c) Public Availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under subsection (a) shall be filed and made available 
     for public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the 
     Forest Service.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, each 
     wilderness area designated under this section shall be 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with--
       (1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (2) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
       (b) Effective Date of Wilderness Act.--With respect to any 
     wilderness area designated by this Act, any reference in the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) to the effective date 
     of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Fish and Wildlife.--As provided in section 4(d)(7) of 
     the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this 
     Act affects any jurisdiction or responsibility of the State 
     with respect to wildlife and fish in the State.
       (d) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, all 
     Federal land in the wilderness areas designated by section 3 
     are withdrawn from--
       (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under the mineral leasing laws (including 
     geothermal leasing laws).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 2464. A bill to revise a provision relating to a repayment 
obligation of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation under the Fort McDowell 
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
revise the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act 
of 1990 in order to bring the Settlement Act process to an orderly 
conclusion. The 1990 Act ratified a negotiated settlement of the Fort 
McDowell Yavapai Nation's water entitlement to flow from the Verde 
River. The Department of the Interior provided technical assistance in 
crafting this legislation. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl as 
an original cosponsor of this bill.
  As part of Water Rights settlement, Congress authorized and directed 
the Secretary of the Interior to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai 
Nation a no-interest loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Project 
Act, in the amount of $13 million, to construct facilities for the 
conveyance and delivery of water to 1,584 acres on the Fort McDowell 
reservation. Prior to construction of the irrigation system, the 
Department of the Interior conducted its environmental review pursuant 
to NEPA. The review revealed that 227 of the acres to be irrigated were 
significant cultural sites and the Secretary subsequently withdrew 
those acres from development. The Department proposed to develop 
replacement lands, subject to the availability of funding. To date, 
however, the replacement lands have not been developed and the 
settlement agreement has been left uncompleted.
  In October 2005, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Department 
of the Interior agreed that the Department's environmental mitigation 
responsibility for the replacement lands should be resolved through 
legislation. They proposed that the Department forgive and cancel Fort 
McDowell's obligation to repay the mandatory loan in return for the 
Tribe's forgiving the Department of the Interior's responsibility to 
develop 227 mitigation acres. The Yavapai Nation and the Department 
further agree that funds already advanced to the Tribe toward 
development of the replacement acres would be reprogrammed to fund 
other water development projects on the Yavapai Nation's reservation.
  The bill introduced today implements the Yavapai Nation's and the 
Department's agreement by effectively resolving the replacement land 
mitigation cost for the Department and the loan repayment by the Tribe. 
This agreement shall constitute completion of all conditions necessary 
to accomplish full and final settlement. Resolution of this last 
remaining issue fully implements the Fort McDowell Indian Community 
Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2464

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fort McDowell Indian 
     Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006''.

[[Page S2472]]

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Fort mcdowell water rights settlement act.--The term 
     ``Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act'' means the Fort 
     McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-628; 104 Stat. 4480).
       (2) Nation.--The term ``Nation'' means the Fort McDowell 
     Yavapai Nation, formerly known as the ``Fort McDowell Indian 
     Community''.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION.

       (a) Cancellation of Obligation.--The obligation of the 
     Nation to repay the loan made under section 408(e) of the 
     Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat. 4489) is 
     cancelled.
       (b) Effect of Act.--
       (1) Rights of nation under fort mcdowell water rights 
     settlement act.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     nothing in this Act alters or affects any right of the Nation 
     under the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act.
       (B) Exception.--The cancellation of the repayment 
     obligation under subsection (a) shall be considered--
       (i) to fulfill all conditions required to achieve a full 
     and final settlement of all claims to water rights or 
     injuries to water rights under the Fort McDowell Water Rights 
     Settlement Act; and
       (ii) to relieve the Secretary of any responsibility or 
     obligation to obtain mitigation property or develop 
     additional farm acreage under section 410 the Fort McDowell 
     Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat. 4490).
       (2) Eligibility for services and benefits.--Nothing in this 
     Act alters or affects the eligibility of the Nation or any 
     member of the Nation for any service or benefit provided by 
     the Federal Government to federally recognized Indian tribes 
     or members of such Indian tribes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2465. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
provide increased assistance for the prevention, treatment, and control 
of tuberculosis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 2466. A bill to authorize and direct the exchange and conveyance 
of certain National Forest land and other land in southeast Arizona; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KYL. 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.

[[Page S2473]]

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.

                          ____________________