Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is correct.

Mr. BURNS. 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.

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

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

Mr. BURNS. And the Boxer amendment has been laid aside.

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

Mr. BURNS. 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?

Mr. BURNS. 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.

Mr. BURNS. It is not.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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 BURNS

Mr BURNS. 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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. 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.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, next week should be a week of looking at our health care system and debating on the direction that I think the policy should go in that area. Not only do we have tort reform that has been suggested by the leader, but also the ability of small business to band together across States to lower the cost of insurance, especially small business owners who have less than 10 employees, and sole proprietors, and even individuals, to band together and do something about lowering their costs of insurance. Today, I want to open minds and start setting the framework of what this debate is all about that will occur next week. It is about the unrestrained escalation of jury awards that are driving up the cost of many medical procedures. Consequently, many of our best and brightest in the medical field are limiting services, retiring early, or move to States where liability premiums are stable in order to carry out their Hippocratic Oath. The true victims of this disturbing trend are the vulnerable and sick among us whose access to quality care becomes more restricted with each day that this crisis is not addressed. It is time for responsible legislators to do what is right for our health care system and the medical community and pass S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006 and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Act. The consequences of this trend fall hardest on women and children. Contrary to what the other side may say, the exploding cost of liability insurance has limited access to OB/GYNs. It has caused women to receive less prenatal and preventive health care, and many low- income women to lose critical access to community clinic services. This is not happening because of a sudden increase in physician negligence. It is happening because of the ever increasing number of lawsuits filed against health care providers each day. By and large, these are meritless suits filed by trial lawyers who seek to take advantage of the justice system in order to enrich themselves. I urge members of the Senate not to fall prey to the influence of these trial lawyers, and we know they have it. Every time this issue has come before this body, the trial lawyer lobby has flexed its muscle to put a stop to its progress. If we work together we can come to a plan to address this situation. Who is it that these trial lawyers are opposing? It is not only the pleas for help from doctors, who overwhelmingly support reform, it's also the will of the American people, who support medical liability reform at a rate of 75 percent. And the reason they support it is not because they think those who have been harmed by a doctor's negligence shouldn't be compensated, it's because they know how these trial lawyers are hurting them, their families and neighbors. They see the commercials from these so called law firms on late-night television offering to sue any doctor over anything and everything possible. Or they or someone they know has had difficulty finding an OB/GYN to deliver a baby. In fact, to give this issue even more of a human face, my daughter had to give up delivering babies because she could no longer afford the crushing burden of inflated insurance costs imposed upon her by these trial lawyers bringing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against OB/GYNs. Of course, insurance companies--we have heard they make all kinds of money. I tell you, in my State of Montana I think only a very few companies offer any kind of medical liability. While the trial lawyers' bank accounts have continued to grow, the number of doctors able to perform one of the most important acts a doctor can perform has gone down and patients are the ones being hurt. Given the choice between siding with doctors and patients or the legal community, I think I will take the side of the doctors and the patients every time. That is not to say if a person has been wronged or harmed by negligence, they shouldn't be able to recover their economic loss. It is time for us to step up to the plate and set the policy and finally do something to ease this cost of not only insurance but our total health care system. Those who would oppose medical liability reform will say there is no problem, there are no frivolous lawsuits, and these reforms only harm those who have been hurt by doctors' negligence. Those assertions are simply false. No two ways about it. Let's look at the facts. On any given day there are nearly 125,000 lawsuits pending against health care providers, and 75 percent of these will close with no payment. Some would say that is not bad, there is no harm, 75 percent will close with no payment--so what? The cost comes to the medical community when you have to pay for and provide a defense. Statistics show that of cases that do go to trial, 86 percent of the doctors will be found not liable. Still, the cost of defending the case is very costly. Consequently, the doctors who are targeted by these lawsuits will spend an average of $90,000 to defend themselves. That is added into the cost of our health care, not only for providers but also into our insurance premiums. More striking is the impact these suits have on American access to quality medical care. One in seven obstetricians no longer delivers babies due to the fear of being sued; 30 percent to 50 percent of high- risk specialists are sued every year. That is a high number. How would you want to spend all this time in medical school, all this time and money, and then fall into a category that, once you go into practice, you have a 30- to 50-percent chance of being sued every year while you are in practice? Mr. President, 79 percent of physicians practice defensive medicine. What is that? It is ordering costly and unnecessary tests due to the fear of being sued, of not covering all the bases--not only covering all the bases but maybe covering them twice. This adds between $83 billion and $151 billion per year in added costs to patients and their physicians. The impact on my State of Montana and other rural States has been even more disturbing. Today there are only 104 obstetricians practicing in Montana. The population of Montana is 900,000. Over the past decade, liability premiums for many hospitals, including many nonprofit critical access hospitals in Montana, have risen nearly 1,000 percent. I am a big proponent of rural health in order to maintain smaller hospitals, critical access hospitals, and delivery of health care services closer to the people. I think I have 12 or 13 counties that have no doctors at all--none, zip. That concerns me. People who live in those counties should have access to health care providers. Right now those of us in rural America simply cannot afford this. Right now, in Montana, we are very thin in those low populated counties that are remote from a bigger city that may have a larger medical corridor. As a result, many in my State travel hundreds of miles to see a doctor, sometimes all the way to cities such as Seattle and Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, or Denver, CO, for specialized care. I fear this situation will only worsen if we do not act now. We can't continue to sit back and allow this to go on, and allow this situation to damage our health care system. Our doctors cannot afford it and, more importantly, our loved ones who rely on access to affordable health care cannot afford it, either. I urge my colleagues to pass both of these bills, S. 22 and S. 23. These bills bring a fair and reasonable reform to medical liability systems, the system that will work. In fact, the model we are sort of patterning this one after is working in Texas. Since the enactment of similar laws in the State of Texas, the largest liability carrier has dropped its premium by 22 percent, competition in the health care liability market is increasing, premiums are stable or down, and access to health care is up. I think that is what we want to see happen. Clearly this approach is working to the benefit of doctors and patients and, more importantly, I want to put the emphasis on patients. The only people hurt by these commonsense reforms are the folks who make a living in frivolous lawsuits. So I call upon this body to reject their money, their influence, and do what is right for the American people, especially young mothers, and for healthy babies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of concern around the country about the escalating fuel prices. Americans get concerned whenever we see spikes in energy costs. No one is more concerned than we are in agriculture. We have a unique situation in agriculture. We sell wholesale, buy retail, and pay the freight both ways. Every one of those stages involves energy, drives energy and drives prices. It seems to me we are concerned about the traffic around Washington, DC, trying to get into work. I could take care of the gas prices and the traffic all in one fell swoop. All we have to do is pass a law that you cannot cross the 14th Street bridge with a car that is not paid for. That would help a lot. There would be a lot of folks finding other means. This has been a wakeup call to all in this country. We are dealing with a worldwide commodity that is driven by emerging economies as well as our own demand for transportation fuels. The demand has outstripped our ability to move crude, natural gas or coal to the processing plants and refineries. I tell my colleagues that in Montana we are producing more oil than in the history of our State. Yet we cannot get it on a pipeline because we have not built a pipeline for quite a while. We have also not built a new refinery in this country for over 30 years. There are a variety of reasons, the majority of which is the ability to permit and to site a plant. So we find ourselves not being able to produce enough product for the market. Anybody who took economics 101 will tell you, when demand outstrips production, then you are going to have the price go up. Now, I would imagine this will drive us in another direction. It will drive us in the direction of alternative fuels and, of course, renewable energy. No other administration in our Government's history has spent more money on research as far as alternatives and renewables. We are on the cusp of cellulosic ethanol, which helps my State. Also in this business of alternative fuels is biodiesel, which will be one of the great renewables. Coal to liquids or coal to diesel will also be one of our great fuels. This technology is as old as World War II. Since then it has been refined and affords another source for developing resources where we have great deposits of coal. In Montana we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal and we have the process and technology to easily get this done. Now, if we can do that, and we can also increase farm income, and solve the problem of being dependent on foreign oil, who can oppose that? Does that give us relief in the near term? No, it does not. There is nothing the Government or anybody else can do in the near term to prevent these kinds of spikes in a time of high demand. So we will say that necessity is the mother of invention. We will be forced to drive less, to drive slower. We will not jump in our car and go down and buy a loaf of bread. The trip has to be necessary. And you will probably have a little sticker in the middle of your steering wheel saying: Is this trip necessary? The necessity will also drive us to alternatives and other ways of powering our car. The demand for oil seems little affected by high prices. If it doesn't change our behaviors, then it is wrong to say prices are too high. Maybe we do not like it, but we all like to sell our product for as much as we can get for it. And that is how the market actually works and sometimes it becomes very painful. No, it is not good. It is not good for my agriculture because that affects the price you are going to pay for food in the grocery store. There is no part of our economy that is not affected by what we are experiencing in this country right now. But Americans have imagination. They have great ingenuity. And I am satisfied we will take this little spike in the market and make good use of it and start using our brains to power America. If anybody thinks if you beat up on the companies--beat up all you want to--but part of the problem lies within this body because we have said ``no''--resoundingly no--to a multitude of programs and projects that could have partly prevented this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have discussed at length the problem of illegal immigration. What many may not realize is that illegal immigration affects our system of representation as well. After the 1990 Census, my State of Montana lost one of its two seats in the House of Representatives. Ten years later, our great State had grown to more than 900,000 residents, but still did not gain a seat. Meanwhile, we have an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this country today, and all of them will be a factor to determine which States gain or lose a seat in the House of Representatives after the Census in 2010. This is because current policy tells us to count everyone in this country, illegal or not, when determining Congressional apportionment. If these trends continue, we will have millions more illegal aliens counted in the 2010 Census. The result will be more seats lost in States that have actually increased in population of law-abiding U.S. residents. Thankfully, my State of Montana cannot lose any more seats in the House of Representatives. We are down to our last one. Other States, however, will not be so fortunate. Law-abiding citizens should not have to lose representation because millions of illegal immigrants ignore our laws. That is why today, I am introducing the Fair and Accurate Representation Act. This bill will exclude the masses of illegal aliens in this country from being part of the Congressional apportionment process. If we act now, we can get started on reforming this process in time for the 2010 Census. The voting rights of law-abiding citizens should not be diluted by those who choose to enter this country illegally. I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to join me in correcting this process, so that those who lawfully reside in this country receive fair and accurate representation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have discussed at length the problem of illegal immigration. What many may not realize is that illegal immigration affects our system of representation as well. After the 1990 Census, my State of Montana lost one of its two seats in the House of Representatives. Ten years later, our great State had grown to more than 900,000 residents, but still did not gain a seat. Meanwhile, we have an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this country today, and all of them will be a factor to determine which States gain or lose a seat in the House of Representatives after the Census in 2010. This is because current policy tells us to count everyone in this country, illegal or not, when determining Congressional apportionment. If these trends continue, we will have millions more illegal aliens counted in the 2010 Census. The result will be more seats lost in States that have actually increased in population of law-abiding U.S. residents. Thankfully, my State of Montana cannot lose any more seats in the House of Representatives. We are down to our last one. Other States, however, will not be so fortunate. Law-abiding citizens should not have to lose representation because millions of illegal immigrants ignore our laws. That is why today, I am introducing the Fair and Accurate Representation Act. This bill will exclude the masses of illegal aliens in this country from being part of the Congressional apportionment process. If we act now, we can get started on reforming this process in time for the 2010 Census. The voting rights of law-abiding citizens should not be diluted by those who choose to enter this country illegally. I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to join me in correcting this process, so that those who lawfully reside in this country receive fair and accurate representation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment this afternoon and discuss this supplemental and the need to restore some fiscal responsibility to this body. America has had some big challenges thrown at it over the last 5 years 9/11, the war on terror, and Hurricane Katrina and those challenges have required some commitment from the Federal Treasury. I accept that. But Congress can not continue to spend without restraint, and this administration can not continue to rely on the use of emergency supplementals to circumvent the congressional budget process. When the President sent his budget request for fiscal year 2007 up to Congress, the administration indicated that Congress should expect some emergency supplemental requests as well. On February 16, the administration asked for $92.2 billion in emergency funding for the war on terror and hurricane recovery. I think we need to ask some tough questions about budget processes and emergency funding requests. Do all of these dollars truly belong outside the normal budget and appropriations debate? I support the war on terror, and I am sympathetic to the devastation caused by the hurricanes, but neither of those events justifies a blank check from Congress. The President has asked for $92.2 billion, and I think that--at a minimum--we need to work our way back to that number in conference. We need to take a careful look at all of the President's requests, as well as the priorities that other Senators have, and make a decision as to whether these provisions are truly emergency needs. I realize that some of my colleagues might take exception to these comments, since I have pushed for agricultural disaster assistance. I believe the most important component of that package is the energy assistance payments, to help farmers manage unprecedented increases in the cost of fuel and fertilizer price increases that were caused in large part by the hurricanes. Congress has been generous in addressing gulf coast recovery, but we cannot address some of the impact while leaving others to absorb the full impact of an unforeseeable disaster. Producers have waited and waited, watching one supplemental after another go by without their legitimate concerns being addressed. Budgets are about priorities--allocating the right amount of money to the right places at the right time for the right reasons. We have limited resources, and we need to allocate them wisely. I am confident that, working in good faith with our colleagues in the House and the administration, we can bring the overall dollar figure down, while still addressing the truly pressing needs that are out there. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Aviation Fuel Tax Simplification Act. This bill would suspend the new tax system on aviation grade kerosene until we have time to adequately address and study the impacts of such a proposal on aviation small businesses and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This bill addresses a problem created in the Highway Bill this body passed last year. That bill contained a change in the collection of fuel taxes for business and general aviation operators. Prior to the Highway bill passing, jet fuel intended for noncommercial use was taxed at 21.9 cents per gallon. Under the new provision, all taxes on aviation jet fuel are collected at the diesel fuel rate, which is 24.4 cents per gallon. After collection at the higher rate, the operator or ultimate vendor then has to file a claim with the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to be reimbursed for the 2.5 cent per gallon difference. Once, and only if, the vendor files the claim do the tax revenues then get transferred to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. For general aviation, most of the entities that would be the ultimate vendors are the Fixed Based Operators, FBOs, located at the 19,200 airports, heliports and seaplane bases throughout the U.S. Most of these FBOs are very small mom and pop businesses, and they do not have the resources to comply with the IRS's ultimate vendor rules. The Highway bill provision took effect last October, with little guidance from the IRS on how aviation fuel operators should apply the new policy. This lack of guidance has created an onerous and convoluted process for taxing aviation jet fuel. It also presents an enormous administrative challenge for aviation businesses, the overwhelming majority of which have never been engaged in any sort of wrongdoing. This provision was put in the Highway bill with the best of intentions in an effort to fight fuel fraud. However, I believe that provision has fallen into the category covered by the rule of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the reality is the impact on small aviation businesses far outweighs the intent. In theory, the provision was put into place to address fuel fraud allegations directed at truck drivers filling up with jet fuel to avoid the 24.4 highway/diesel fuel tax. In reality, jet fuel is considerably more expensive than diesel fuel. It makes no sense to me that a truck driver would pay at least $1 per gallon more to save 25 cents per gallon in taxes. I have heard from many Montana providers on this issue and I think I can safely say, while the intent was noble, the impact is far too burdensome. Because of the burden and the possible impact on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund I feel it necessary to immediately suspend the new tax system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a more appropriate way of curbing fuel fraud.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Aviation Fuel Tax Simplification Act. This bill would suspend the new tax system on aviation grade kerosene until we have time to adequately address and study the impacts of such a proposal on aviation small businesses and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This bill addresses a problem created in the Highway Bill this body passed last year. That bill contained a change in the collection of fuel taxes for business and general aviation operators. Prior to the Highway bill passing, jet fuel intended for noncommercial use was taxed at 21.9 cents per gallon. Under the new provision, all taxes on aviation jet fuel are collected at the diesel fuel rate, which is 24.4 cents per gallon. After collection at the higher rate, the operator or ultimate vendor then has to file a claim with the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to be reimbursed for the 2.5 cent per gallon difference. Once, and only if, the vendor files the claim do the tax revenues then get transferred to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. For general aviation, most of the entities that would be the ultimate vendors are the Fixed Based Operators, FBOs, located at the 19,200 airports, heliports and seaplane bases throughout the U.S. Most of these FBOs are very small mom and pop businesses, and they do not have the resources to comply with the IRS's ultimate vendor rules. The Highway bill provision took effect last October, with little guidance from the IRS on how aviation fuel operators should apply the new policy. This lack of guidance has created an onerous and convoluted process for taxing aviation jet fuel. It also presents an enormous administrative challenge for aviation businesses, the overwhelming majority of which have never been engaged in any sort of wrongdoing. This provision was put in the Highway bill with the best of intentions in an effort to fight fuel fraud. However, I believe that provision has fallen into the category covered by the rule of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the reality is the impact on small aviation businesses far outweighs the intent. In theory, the provision was put into place to address fuel fraud allegations directed at truck drivers filling up with jet fuel to avoid the 24.4 highway/diesel fuel tax. In reality, jet fuel is considerably more expensive than diesel fuel. It makes no sense to me that a truck driver would pay at least $1 per gallon more to save 25 cents per gallon in taxes. I have heard from many Montana providers on this issue and I think I can safely say, while the intent was noble, the impact is far too burdensome. Because of the burden and the possible impact on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund I feel it necessary to immediately suspend the new tax system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a more appropriate way of curbing fuel fraud.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning the leader touched on a lot of problems we have before us as we come back from Easter break. I know most of us have been home and listened to the folks at home. Most of us have probably come back with more challenges than when we left. Here are a couple of issues. I was glad to hear the leader bring up the situation on insurance premiums, especially for small businesses and the self-employed. Senator Enzi of Wyoming and I have been working on the small business health plans for almost a year now. That is nothing new. It is not a new idea. Ever since I joined the Small Business Committee and even under the chairmanship of my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, prior to 1994, we were working on the same issue, but we were unsuccessful then and have been unsuccessful up until now in striking a balance. There is broad support for the approach being taken by the chairman of the HELP Committee. If you talk with folks engaged in small business, Montana businesses with 10 employees or less have little or no leverage when it comes to buying group insurance or trying to broaden their pool to keep their insurance premiums at a minimum. I look forward to that debate when the bill comes to the floor, and I look forward to final passage and getting it to the President for his signature. I took a drive across the State of Montana over Easter Recess, all by myself. I just jumped into my pickup and took off and talked with rural Montanans. I fight awfully hard for rural Montanans for the simple reason that, right now, they are sort of being pushed into the background when we start talking about what is happening in our economy. Even though our livestock prices are decent, the grain producers, and many other folks, still have a real problem because they cannot get their arms around this business of containing costs, and the cost of energy is their main issue. Whenever gas and diesel prices go up, it goes up on the farm also, and the cost of putting a crop in and getting it out has increased substantially due to these high energy costs. We are a big State. We are a mobile State. We are 147,000 square miles. Yes, we only have 900,000 people, and some could probably make the case it is getting a little crowded up there. We have to drive long distances just to do business around the State, and these energy prices are impacting all of us. Everybody wants to stand around on the floor of the Senate pointing fingers, when we could be looking at the real case of cumulative effects--of what we have done in policy and what has to be done to produce more energy for a growing society and a growing economy. We are driven by agriculture in my State. Farmers and ranchers are price takers; in other words, we sell wholesale, we buy retail, and we pay the freight both ways. Any time we talk about freight, whether it is delivering or receiving, energy is involved. So we are caught in what some would think is a perfect storm. We haven't hit the $3 mark for gasoline in Montana yet, as other parts of the country have, but we are nearing it. In fact, we are so close to it that folks are afraid of what will happen if we do hit it. I will tell you this: We have a situation in northeast Montana and northwest North Dakota called the Williston Basin. This area is quite a large producer of oil and gas. When we start quoting the price of oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange, we are not really talking about what the cash or spot price of oil is costing today. Do you realize, even though everybody is talking about the price of $73 a barrel, that market price is not being paid to our oil producers today? It is a long way from that $73. In fact, it is from $25 to $35 lower than even the spot price. Why? We are finding more oil, we are doing a better job of finding oil and lifting it, but the infrastructure of transportation-- in other words, getting the crude to the refineries--and the refineries' capacity to refine it has not kept pace even with our own production in the United States. Therein lies a problem, and it is one we have to address. We have not built a refinery in this country for 30 years--35 years, I think, if you want to get very particular. The ability to expand refining capacity in the present-day facility is becoming very expensive and cannot be done without expanding outside the boundary. If anybody has the idea that the refiners are making a lot of money, look at their return on investment. It is not very big. So people point their fingers at the refiners. Do they point their fingers at the big oil companies? Yes, they do, and in some cases justifiably so. We can sit here and poke holes in that argument. But our basic problem is siting and building facilities to satisfy a growing demand. If you want to build a new refinery, or if you want to build a new pipeline to move the crude to the refining areas, I will tell you, you are going to have sticker shock when you look at what it costs just in permitting and siting for that facility. It is unbelievable. 25 percent of the estimated construction cost of a new refinery now will be eaten up in permits and siting, and all because of some laws and regulations that basically do not serve this country very well. Am I justifying the prices today? Somewhat. But I think what we are seeing is a perfect storm of cumulative effects, of not keeping pace with our ability to produce and lift oil from the ground. Alternative fuels and renewable fuels are also an important part of our energy program. In 2002, we actually got a title into the agricultural bill that dealt with renewables and agriculture. We knew that we were going to have an energy bill and that title would dovetail into some of the policies that we wanted to put forward in an energy bill. We knew that an energy bill should come pretty quick. However, it did not come quickly. It came some 4 years later. After dragging and stalling and putting up all kinds of barriers, we finally got an energy bill in 2005, and we did dovetail some of the elements on renewables as it relates to agriculture. In 2007, we will renew the Agriculture bill. And I would not be a bit surprised if we do not see energy even in the main title because we can produce renewables and we can produce alternative fuels to make sure we wean ourselves off of our dependency on foreign oil. We have to do that. We are going to get it done even though there are people who will obstruct and drag their feet in setting the policy. I see my good friend from Utah is in the Chamber. Whenever you are producing oil at post-1970 production in the State of Montana, that means we have crude oil, like the crude oil that could go to refineries today in his State of Utah, from pipelines that are fed out of Montana, as well as to refineries in Montana and also in Colorado. Do you realize a 36-inch pipeline moves something like 86 thousand barrels a day? We can't even get on that pipeline. That pipeline is owned by Canada, and it is full of tar sands oil moving to refineries in Utah and Colorado. Meanwhile we are actually slowing down production at wells since we can't get all the crude oil being produced in the Williston Basin area today out of the area. If we do manage to get some of the crude oil on the pipeline, it is at a discounted price of around $25 to $30 a barrel. What is wrong with this picture? The infrastructure isn't there to move the oil. The refining capacity is not there to refine the oil. We are picking and choosing who gets the oil on the pipeline and who gets to sell their crude oil at prices that are far less than $73 a barrel. The price that is going through the roof, that we hear so much about, is the oil futures price, which is set by speculators and expectations. That is not the spot price. Americans have to understand the difference. So we need infrastructure, but we also need this ability to produce the alternatives and the renewables and to get those energy products on line as well. And we can do just that if we don't have to chew up 25 percent of our construction costs just in permitting and selecting a site in which to do the work. I know that high costs affect people who have to drive automobiles to get to work and have to go places to make this economy grow. Yes, the President is right on. Let's take a look at the oil companies. Let's see what is going on there. Let's get on the internal part of it and see what the prices are all about today. But I stand here today with the appeal that we need to look at our food and fiber production across this country. I will tell you something else I found out while driving around Montana. I would drive down the highway through a little town, and if I saw a little restaurant there, a little cafe with six or seven pickups sitting there, I would go in and have a cup of coffee. You will get some conversation going on in there, I guarantee you. When I hear of farmers cutting back on the use of fertilizer by almost a third last fall and this spring when going in with their crops, that sends a message to the rest of the country that food and fiber production is being negatively impacted by these energy costs. Yields go down, the amount of grain and food products that moves to the marketplace goes down. The producers just can't afford the fertilizer. Then they go to pay their diesel costs for putting the crop in and taking it out, and it makes for a very interesting discussion around the restaurant or the cafe in the coffee clutch. Usually those fellows have all the answers, if you will just listen. I hope most of our Members of this Senate would do that: Just take off, sit down in a restaurant, listen to what people are talking about, and then try to come up with some sort of policy that would increase our ability to move and to be mobile and to fuel an economy that supports a very mobile society. For alternative fuels, our technology is moving right along. We have many technologies that are going to help us in ethanol production, especially the cellulosic technology that uses plant residues. What we usually throw away, the waste, can now be turned into energy. Biodiesel is viable. Genetically improved oilseeds are being produced and can be turned into a cleaner diesel. We were in Billings yesterday and saw an experiment of what can be done with biodiesel. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in Montana. There are ways to turn that into diesel. Basically, we haven't found any alternative to diesel in moving big loads. We have to continue our research and development and our effort to turn what we grow every year, what is renewable every year, into usable, practical renewables to fuel our every day lives. So I hope that during this week policies which would increase production, whether hydrocarbon or renewable, could move out because there is nothing in the short term that is going to take care of it. I tell you: we have to look at the long term of where we want to be in 20 years and ask ourselves how we get there. To formulate that policy in 1 week is asking a lot from this body or any other policymaking body. Nonetheless, we have to take up that challenge and be aware of what is happening on our farms and ranches across this country because the second thing every one of us does when we get up in the morning is eat breakfast, and we know the cost of that is going to rise if we don't address this business called high energy prices. There is a cumulative effect here. We could point fingers at one, two, three, or four different contributing factors, but it is the perfect storm of all these factors that have come together. Finally we are being sent a message that policy has to be changed in order to increase our ability to move Americans. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.