Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. First of all, I would like to point out that this is not that difficult to understand. There are two points of order we can make on spending. We can make a short-term point of order, which is within 10 years, or we can make a long-term point of order, which is in the next 40 years, which is long-term spending. This point of order is made on the latter, the 40 years. All the arguments that have been made on the floor have been on the first 10 years. So what you can do in this kind of piece of legislation is, you can lump everything to make it look good, and then after the 10 years you put all your spending. That is why we have the long-term provision where you can make a point of order for those of us who are concerned about long-term spending--programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and programs like what we are talking about in this bill that have a profound long-term effect on spending. That is what the point of order addresses. The Budget Committee is not out here fighting this bill. They are presenting figures to us. And this is what they say: Pursuant to section 407 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the CBO estimates that enacting this bill would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. That is the last 40 years we are talking about. All the arguments on this floor have been on the first 10 years. This point of order is about the next 40 years and long-term spending and what it is doing to the long-term fiscal health of this country and the huge deficits that are going to lead to huge debts in the 40 years after the first 10 years. That is what this point of order is all about. One other point I would like to make is that we are concerned about spending. The figures that are put in here by CBO--they are concerned about spending--these are real figures that will make a difference in American lives, in the next generation of American lives. We need to face up to our responsibility. When pieces of legislation such as this are on the floor, we need to think seriously about the fiscal impact long term. That is why I made the point of order. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to Senator Sessions. Then after his comments, I think we will be ready to wrap it up.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, is the other side ready to yield back their time?

Mr. ALLARD. Then I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to quickly summarize by saying this is about long-term spending. The Congressional Budget Office, a week ago, brought out a cost estimate that explicitly states: Enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. This is a big spending bill in the outlying years. That is what the point of order is all about. It is not difficult. It is straightforward. These are figures that we were presented with from the Congressional Budget Office a little over a week ago. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no to grant a waiver. I yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am going to speak under morning business on Senate bill 1955, the small business health plans legislation that is going to be before us shortly for formal debate. I come to the floor to talk about a piece of legislation that is important to my Colorado constituents. I would like to talk about the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act, sometimes known as HIMMA. This legislation, which is also known as the small business health plans bill, would allow for small businesses to come together to form a group which could then use their combined purchasing power to influence insurance companies for affordable health plans. It has been suggested that those who serve in the Senate have no understanding of what small business folks are going through and that most of us have never been faced with the reality of having no health insurance and therefore don't understand the plight of the small businessman. I come to dispel that rumor. I am a former small businessman who couldn't afford the cost of health insurance for myself or for my employees. My wife and I discussed options for ourselves and for our employees. Similar to many other small business owners across the country, we decided it would be better to raise our employees' rate of pay and allow them to purchase their own individual plans. My wife and I decided to begin setting aside our own savings account to pay for health care costs in case, for some reason or another, I had an incident or she had an incident where we needed to go to the hospital and thus needed health care coverage. Being a veterinarian and lifting heavy dogs onto the exam table all the time, and not expecting the dog owner to pick up the other half of a giant breed such as a Great Dane, I ended up having back problems and had to have back surgery. I didn't have health insurance, but I paid for it myself out of my own pocket. Fortunately, my wife and I had the foresight to set aside a savings plan so that if something such as this did happen, we could pay for it. But it did set us back. We were able to survive that particular incident. It was kind of an interesting thing, what happened to me when I went to go to the hospital. The administrators didn't want me to go into the hospital. The hospital would not let us in because we did not have health insurance. I said: Well, I will pay for it. When we got in there, I had the surgery, and I did very well, and I am very active today. The doctors did a great job on surgery. When we checked out of the hospital, the administrator said that they would reduce our costs by 20 percent because they did not have to deal with the paperwork and with the cost of having to process my claim. So much of the paperwork is driven by trying to protect the hospital, the doctors, and the administrators from frivolous lawsuits. That has been my personal experience. I must admit I was disappointed when, earlier in the week, Members of the Senate chose to side with trial lawyers instead of women and children. And I was disappointed that Members of the Senate decided to support turning the medical profession into a cash cow for the legal profession instead of allowing for legitimate compensation. Again, in a matter of minutes, we will be debating the small business health plans bill and another attempt to bring down the high cost of health care, specifically for working class families who are employed by small businesses that, similar to my own situation, cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. I think it is important for us to focus this debate on at least giving small businesses the opportunity to make a choice on providing health care for themselves and for their employees. Currently, because of the prohibitive cost of health care coverage for their employees, many small business employers don't even have the option of offering coverage. Some of my constituents have brought to my attention over the past few weeks their worries that because of the lack of insurance benefit mandates, they could lose important benefits such as diabetes services and supplies, and coverage of preventive services such as colorectal screenings and mammograms. These worries are unfounded. Today there are over 1,800 different State mandates for health care coverage, including different coverage mandates in different States for the same preventive care, services, and supplies. This huge variation in mandates has made it nearly impossible to provide standardized coverage on a national basis. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office, which is an agency which helps to watch our dollars, has also found that the cost of mandates to a typical plan results in an increase between 5 and 22 percent. The Congressional Budget Office, another dollar-watching agency, estimates that for every 1 percent increase in insurance costs, a minimum of 200,000 Americans are left uninsured. Facts suggest that things such as diabetes services and supplies and preventive services such as mammograms and colorectal screenings are usually covered by health plans, regardless of the State mandates. For example, the five most populous States require that diabetes care be covered. According to the American Diabetic Association and the GAO, only 4 out of 50 States do not require diabetic coverage. The General Accounting Office also studied States that are not subject to mandated coverages of diabetic services and supplies. Despite not being subject to mandated requirements for coverage, several of the largest plans and many of the largest Fortune 500 companies provide comprehensive coverage for diabetes care. This factual evidence also applies to preventive services such as cancer screening. The Government Accountability Office found that the majority of States that do not have mandates continue to provide coverage in a majority of their employer plans for cancer screening. The bottom line is that the small business health plan bill makes logical sense. It will give small business owners what they want and what they need, and they will offer insurance coverage for their employees. It makes logical sense that plans covering preventive care will be offered because preventive care costs less in the long run. It makes logical sense that small business owners who currently cannot provide their employees with health care would purchase coverage because it is more affordable. It is important to note at this point that a small business owner who buys health care coverage is also naturally subject to the same health care coverage that he provides his employees. Small business owners are pushing for health insurance coverage for themselves and their employees, which they otherwise could not afford. It is not logical that they would pay money for a plan that does not provide them with medical coverage. Also, the point of small business health plans is so that small businesses can join together to use joint collaboration to get their health care needs met. I support the legislation because I support giving small businesses a choice. I support giving small businesses the opportunity for health care coverage that they currently do not receive. I support giving diabetics the opportunity for health care coverage, instead of leaving them completely without services and supplies. I support giving small business employees the opportunity for cancer screening and preventive care, instead of leaving them with nothing and no opportunity to provide health care for themselves and their families. I urge my colleagues to support the small business health plans legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Senate bill 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act. I urge my fellow Senators to give small businesses the opportunity to access health care for themselves and their employees. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that this week, May 7 to 13, 2006, has been designated by the American Humane Association as the 92nd Be Kind to Animals Week. The American Humane Association, which is headquartered in Englewood, CO, was founded in 1877 and is the oldest national organization dedicated to the mission of preventing cruelty to animals, as well as to children. Through this work, American Humane has helped America shed light on the nature and origins of cruelty and through this annual observance reminds us that the practice of kindness can both heal hurt and yield constructive reform. When, in 1915, American Humane launched the Nation's first national week for animals, its purpose was simple: ``to direct the attention of the public to the importance of giving proper care and attention to animals.'' This message resonated powerfully with Americans and quickly evolved into a national public education campaign with a broader mission: promoting the teaching of humane education in our schools; promoting the good works of animal shelters; and helping Americans understand the unique bond between humans and animals. Be Kind to Animals Week is the oldest event of its kind. Each year it reminds us how animals enrich our lives through their companionship, friendship and love. Over the last 91 years, a central theme of this annual event has been the importance of teaching the principles of kindness and compassion to children. Humane groups spend much of their time reacting to mistreatment of animals as it occurs. American Humane believes that, if we share our humane values with our children, these problems can be prevented and our society made safer and kinder. American Humane's Be Kind to Animals Week is as much a lifelong attitude as it is a weeklong event. It is about animal shelters, veterinarians, humane educators, animal control professionals, and the faith community promoting discussion and reflection about kindness to animals, to individuals, within families and perhaps most important, within communities. But Be Kind to Animals Week isn't just about animals. It is also about children and those who care for and about them. As a veterinarian, I have seen firsthand how important animals are to people. When a family adopts a pet, it becomes one of them. Usually, when people bring an animal to a veterinarian, it is because there is something wrong with the animal. It was always obvious to me the love that people had for their animals. The illness of a pet can cause great sorrow, but the healing of a pet brings great joy. Many studies have shown the increased happiness and healing powers of spending time with a pet. During Be Kind to Animals Week, we should all keep in mind a simple but powerful message. The week should serve as a reminder that as humans, we need to be ever more compassionate about the animals in our world, whether they are companion pets, service animals such as seeing- eye dogs, zoo critters, livestock, or nature's wildlife. It is a reminder that the bond between humans and animals is a vital one and is capable of bringing joy and healing to people of all ages. It is also a reminder to be more kind and compassionate to our fellow man. We co- exist in this world--human to human and human to animal--and those bonds must be maintained, they must be kept strong.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I, for one, am pleased we are moving forward this next week with the health care agenda in an attempt to hold down the costs of health care. My colleague who just spoke said: I don't think any Senators have ever experienced life without health insurance. Before I came to the Senate, I didn't have health insurance. So I come to the Senate today as a small businessman who has had to struggle with the costs of health insurance in my small business. I also had to struggle with my employees, making sure that they had appropriate health insurance to meet the immediate needs of their family. The fact that the majority leader has decided this next week to declare health care week to help put forth three pieces of legislation, Senate bills 22 and 23 which deal with liability reform is great. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that lawyers, some way or the other, do not contribute to the cost of health care. The fact is, the threat of lawsuits do add to the cost of health care. Finally, I am pleased one of the bills coming forward in the Senate is the bill allowing small businesses to form associations. Then, as a purchasing unit, they have more power in the marketplace and can negotiate cheaper health insurance policies as a general rule. It does not happen all the time. But at least it gives the small businessman one more tool in trying to hold down the costs of health care. As a small businessman, I had to struggle to maintain health coverage in my veterinarian practice and reached the point at one time where I said: I think what we finally need to do, as a small businessman I cannot afford health insurance, so we will work with each individual employee and give them extra pay so they can go out and shop for their own health insurance. So many times when you have small businesses, as I did, you become the first employer of many new employees entering into the workplace. With the idea they would be somewhat mobile and moving around from one employer to another for the next few years, we decided that was okay, and my wife and I decided to begin setting aside our own savings account to pay for health care costs in case, for some reason or another, I had an incident or she had an incident where we needed to go to the hospital and have some health care. Being a veterinarian and lifting heavy dogs on the exam table all the time and not expecting the dog owner to pick up the other half of a Great Dane, I ended up having back problems and had to have back surgery. I didn't have health insurance. I paid for it myself out of my own pocket. Fortunately, my wife and I had the foresight to set aside a savings plan so that if something such as this did happen, we could pay for it. But it set us back. We were able to survive that particular incident. It was kind of an interesting thing. They did not want us to go into the hospital. They would not let us in because we did not have health insurance. I said: I will pay for it. When we got in there, we had the surgery, and I did very well, and I am very active today. Consequently, they did a great job on the surgery, and when we checked out of the hospital, they said they would reduce our costs 20 percent because ``we do not have to deal with the paperwork of dealing with the costs of having to process your claim.'' So much of the paperwork is driven by trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. That has been my personal experience. That is why I am in the Senate today talking in favor of Senate bill 22, called the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, which is a comprehensive liability reform bill, and in support of Senate bill 23, which is called the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Health Care Act, and talking in favor of the association health plans bill that allow small businesses to come together and form associations so they can, as a bargaining unit, bargain down and get a more reasonable cost on their health insurance. What happens if we do nothing? Right now there are many smart young men and women across the country who are being literally driven away from the health care industry. We are attracting fewer and fewer high- quality medical students than ever before. In some States and some specialties, practicing doctors are actually leaving their professions behind. A little later on I will give you the experiences of a doctor in a rural community who is actually preparing to leave his profession because of the high cost of health insurance. Most of it is because of the high liability insurance, and it is extremely prohibitive for young students and doctors to stay in a field they cannot afford because of the high liability insurance costs. This is creating a problem for patients in health care across the country but particularly in the rural areas. I will address that later on. Doctors are more reluctant to perform complex and high-risk medical procedures such as those involving pediatric orthopedics and spine surgery. It is not an easy procedure having to repair the bone of a fractured infant or having to do spinal surgeries as I experienced. This puts patients' access to emergency and trauma care at risk, also, because this is another high-risk area. Many times, you have to tailor the treatment plan to what is happening with the patient. There is not always a textbook approach, where you treat every patient exactly the same. Every patient is a little bit different. Doctors are moving to States with a more favorable medical liability climate, leaving some areas underserved. In the State of Colorado, which I proudly represent, about a decade ago we did a lot to try and hold down the costs of medical insurance. We dealt with a lot of aspects of medical liability reform. Many of those we have in this bill, but we actually went further than what is in the bill. The bottom line is, in Colorado, we were able to hold down the costs of medical insurance for medical doctors fairly significantly. One of the problems that happened in States such as Colorado, although we had done a lot of things to hold down the cost of health insurance, we found because health insurance companies pool their risks from States other than Colorado, we did not have the impact in some cases we expected to have because other States have not done that much in trying to hold down the cost of health insurance and liability problems that doctors incur when they are in their practices. We were disappointed in that regard. That is why I, as a Senator, feel we need to have a national approach to this problem. That is because there is a lot of variation out there between States, and those States that are not doing anything have an adverse impact on States such as Colorado that are willing to step forward and try to reduce the liability risk and to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Now, in Colorado, we are lucky enough today to already have had some liability reform for frivolous lawsuits. But across the Nation, States are experiencing extreme shortages in health care professionals because of the cost of liability insurance. Now, another thing that may happen if we do not do anything is that medical students that may eventually wish to settle in States such as Colorado, but cannot because they cannot get the training they need because they cannot afford the liability insurance in States where they have to go to do their residency. We have a medical school in Colorado, but lots of times medical students are encouraged, with their residency and whatnot, to go to other hospitals and other institutions because everybody has a little bit different view of how they are going to handle different types of cases, and this exposes them to different points of view, so they can make up their mind what best works for them. So they will lose that opportunity. Now, the bill, S. 22, would create a graduated cap system similar to what was just put in place in Texas. If we look at the Texas model, we have seen some remarkable results. But the bill would provide for unlimited economic damages. So if the patient wins a lawsuit against a medical doctor to provide for a decent living for their family, then they can collect those economic damages. It provides a stacked cap model that would keep non-economic damages at or below $750,000. They break it out this way: There would be up to $250,000 from a decision rendered against a health care provider and $250,000 from a decision rendered against a single health care institution and $250,000 from a decision rendered against more than one health care institution, not to exceed $500,000. It also provides punitive damages, but those are not to be any greater than twice the economic damage award or $250,000. This bill also guarantees that lawsuits are filed no later than 3 years after the injury and extends the statute of limitations for minors injured before age 6. Under the age of 6, not always does an incident emerge right away. So if you have too short of a statute of liability, then it does create a problem for the patient. So this bill also looks at what we can do to take care of legitimate lawsuits that patients might have. This is one of the aspects which is provided for in the bill we have before us. The language also intends to maximize patient recovery of payment by focusing on attorney payment regulations. It also establishes standards for expert witness rules, promotes fairness in the recovery of health benefits, and attempts to prevent double recovery. It keeps the focus on the patient by attempting to curtail frivolous lawsuits, which is the key. I mentioned Texas earlier in my comments, where there was legislation that was recently put into effect. Here is what happened in that State since September of 2003. They have added nearly 4,000 doctors in their State. Insurance premiums have declined. The number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut in half. Those are very significant events. It is similar to what we experienced in the State of Colorado when we passed a far-ranging liability reform bill. Currently, we are at a crossroads on a very controversial issue. Now, in the interest of my constituents, I have cosponsored this particular piece of legislation, S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006. It still allows for individuals to file claims for compensation for all economic damages they have incurred and allows for a reasonable amount of punitive damages. Now, I have a few anecdotal situations I would like to talk about that affected Colorado. These are doctors who came and visited my office, and here is what they had to say, why they think we had to have medical liability reform. The first one is about a medical doctor in Ft. Morgan. It is a relatively small rural town in northeastern Colorado. He expressed his concern in having to stop accepting new patients. He was concerned that with the rising costs of liability insurance, he would no longer be able to afford to accept new patients with the amount he is reimbursed. Even more distressing for this doctor in rural Colorado was the fact that he was going to have to start turning away patients whom he had been serving for years. His final question was, if he could not afford to serve them, who would? This brings up anecdotal evidence of what I explained earlier, that because of the high cost of liability insurance, doctors are giving up patients in rural areas because they simply cannot afford to service them because of the liability incurred. Last week, a student with the American Osteopathic Association expressed his troubles finishing up his education. This applies to student experiences. This student is from rural Colorado, with plans to return to rural Colorado to practice. The problem is, he cannot afford the medical liability insurance in other States to get the specialized training he needs to come and practice in rural Colorado. Now, doctors in small bordering towns of Colorado, such as Wray, Holyoke, and Burlington, cross the border into Nebraska to serve the rural areas of both States. Now, even if they are lucky enough to be able to afford the medical liability insurance in Colorado, it is nearly impossible for them to afford the additional liability insurance they would need to practice in the rural areas of the bordering State, which is probably closest and more accessible. This is another reason I think we need to have some national legislation. Doctors and specialists from Ft. Collins drive as far as Cheyenne to serve the patients of the frontier country in between those two destinations. Without their dedication, the constituents they serve would be left without health care. We are now faced with that reality because these dedicated doctors can no longer afford the medical liability insurance they are required to have to practice in rural areas. It was expressed in a meeting this week that eventually the need for liability reform legislation would be null and void. Why? Because large hospitals are beginning to pay on a salary so doctors can afford the rising cost of medical liability insurance without worrying about the rate of reimbursement. That may be a solution in urban areas where there is the opportunity for doctors to practice at a large hospital. But in rural areas, that is not an option, and the cost of medical liability insurance will force doctors out of rural areas where they are desperately needed. That is why I think it is so very important we move ahead with these pieces of legislation. I have shared with my colleagues some anecdotal evidence as far as the State of Colorado is concerned. Based on the Colorado experience and based on my personal experience, we cannot afford to continue to stick our head in the sand. We need to realize and recognize there is a problem out there with frivolous lawsuits against dedicated, hard- working medical doctors, particularly those who are trying to make their practices operate in rural areas. So I, for one, ask my colleagues to join me because of the serious problem that is facing the medical community. I believe it is time for the Congress to act, and I am delighted that the Senate has decided to take up the bill this next week. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a National Historic Site in Colorado. The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the 1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the ``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado and endured a move further west for expansion. The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the United States government during World War II as a place to house the Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and hospital. While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our own history.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a National Historic Site in Colorado. The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the 1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the ``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado and endured a move further west for expansion. The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the United States government during World War II as a place to house the Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and hospital. While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our own history.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Salazar amendment is now pending I be allowed to send up the second-degree amendment to his amendment No. 3645.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3701 on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, and Senator Mikulski, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Washington will yield, I would ask that on this side, following the Democratic speaker, whoever that is, that I be allowed to speak, and then following me would be Senator Cornyn, and that there be an intervening--since we are switching sides back and forth, I assume that you would have somebody to put in the queue. So I would ask that you modify your unanimous consent request.

Mr. ALLARD. I want 1 minute to offer an amendment and then another one I want to call up. I think I can get that accomplished within 7 minutes, so I request 7 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment would provide $27.6 million to the Architect of the Capitol to make emergency repairs to utility tunnels that serve the Capitol complex, including asbestos abatement. Unfortunately, this problem has come to our attention recently, and it is a serious crisis that can't wait for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill. About 2 months ago, the Office of Compliance filed a complaint with the Architect of the Capitol due to the conditions of these utility tunnels, including the possibility of tunnel cave-ins, the presence of unsafe levels of asbestos, inadequate means of emergency egress, and inadequate means of communications for those who work in the utility tunnels. This is the first time the compliance office has filed a complaint--a step up from a citation. When this issue was brought to our attention, Senator Durbin and I held oversight hearings with the Architect and demanded a plan to ensure employees who work in the tunnels are protected from unsafe levels of asbestos, fix falling concrete, provide adequate means of egress throughout the tunnels, improve communications for utility workers, secure the tunnels so only authorized employees are given access, and review whether tunnel workers are receiving an appropriate level of environmental or hazardous duty pay. In response, the Architect sent a preliminary plan for fixing the tunnels with a price tag that could ultimately reach several hundred million dollars. Frankly, I was shocked by the magnitude of this problem and the cost estimate. I was appalled that this problem was identified by the Office of Compliance in a citation 6 years ago, and hasn't been put on a fast track for addressing the health and safety problems until Senator Durbin and I asked for a plan. These are serious problems and high levels of asbestos have been found. The amendment I am offering today includes funds to remediate asbestos, remove loose concrete, replace the roof of a section of one of the tunnels, add escape hatches, and improve the communications system. We have reviewed the funding estimates with the Government Accountability Office. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the estimates are preliminary, they are warranted. I had hoped that we could reprogram funds from within the Architect's budget but the magnitude of the need is far beyond what could be found within the Architect's budget. I urge the Senate to agree to the amendment. I ask that it be agreed to by a voice vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks recognizing the Reverend Roger Patrick Joseph Dorcy. The Reverend Roger Patrick Joseph Dorcy was born to Michael and Ellen Dorcy on July 4, 1946. Named for his Aunt Patricia, Patrick Joseph Dorcy was the third youngest of 14 siblings. Growing up in Omaha, NE, he attended Holy Cross School, Creighton Preparatory School, and Mount Michael Abbey. From 1967 to 1969 he worked for Senator Robert F. Kennedy in New York and Washington, DC. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from St. Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana and completed post-graduate work at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Prior to his ordination to the priesthood he was a member of the Order of St. Benedict, St. Meinrad Archabbey. It was there he took the name Roger. Brother Roger was one of the order's youngest teachers, the Archabbey architect, a paramedic, and a firefighter. When he left the Monastery, he moved to Colorado where he taught theology and English at St. Scholastica Academy in Canon City, CO. Finally answering his call, at the age of 33, Roger Patrick Dorcy was ordained a priest in the Diocese of Pueblo, Colorado, on January 29, 1980. He served as pastor at Sacred Heart Church and campus minister at Adams State College in Alamosa, CO. He was associate pastor at St. Leander's and Our Lady of Guadalupe Churches in Pueblo. For 12 years he was the pastor of Our Lady of the Meadows Church in Pueblo; during that time he also served as the dean of the Pueblo Deanery of the Diocese of Pueblo. In 2003 he was appointed rector of the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Diocese of Pueblo. In addition to his parish life in Alamosa and Pueblo, he was a leader with the Southwest Liturgical Conference, the National Association of Clinical Pastoral Ministers, the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, the National Catholic AIDS Network, and the Southern Colorado AIDS Project. In 1993 he completed his sabbatical in clinical pastoral ministry at Immanuel Medical Center in his hometown of Omaha. Later, he served as Bishop Tafoya's community liaison for AIDS Ministry; as president of the Sangre De Cristo Hospice Board; and was a board member of St. Mary Corwin Medical Center since 2000. He died on July 23, 2005, at the age of 59. The Reverend Roger Patrick Dorcy was a monk, a priest, a teacher, an actor, an architect, a healer, a leader; his vocation was dedicated to the healing of bodies and souls. On April 22, 2006, the communities of Pueblo and Colorado celebrated his legacy by naming St. Mary Corwin Medical Center's newly constructed, state-of-the-art cancer center, The Reverend Roger Patrick Dorcy Cancer Center.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today out of concern for the Western United States. The Rocky Mountain West is currently facing a very real threat to one of its most rare and precious resources. Out West there are few things more important than water, and it is this very important and increasingly needed resource that is in peril. This threat was in part brought upon us by a scourge barely larger than my finger tip, the bark beetle. This devious little devil has chewed its way through nearly 7,500,000 trees in Colorado. The beetle left these drought weakened trees dead and dying. This threat is exacerbated by the additional 6,300,000 acres of hazardous fuels that have accumulated throughout Colorado. This devastation is concerning enough on its own, but when you consider the fire danger that it has created, and the direct threat that a catastrophic fire would pose to our watersheds, the true weight of this situation becomes clear. Much of the precipitation that falls into the forests ultimately finds its way into streams, ponds, rivers and lakes. Changes to forested lands caused by fire can have strong and devastating repercussions on the quality and quantity of water in these bodies. A forest fire is one big chemical reaction which releases a myriad of chemical elements from forest materials into the ecosystem. These chemicals can be washed or leach into our water systems. Forest fires can cause immediate and lasting changes to the chemistry of forest water systems, this happens as a result of increases in water temperature and from the smoke and ash created during the burning process. These effects can last long after the flames have passed, effecting water quality for years after the initial fire. Colorado should be called ``the Headwaters State,'' because it is the origin point of major rivers flowing both east and west and the source of a vast amount of the water of the United States. In fact the Colorado Rocky Mountains create the headwaters for 4 regional watersheds that eventually supply water to 19 Western States. Should the streams and rivers flowing out of Colorado become choked and polluted with ash and debris from a forest fire much of the United States' water supply would be affected. The Federal agencies that manage the majority of the affected areas need to adopt an accelerated pace to reduce the public health and safety risk as soon as possible. To address this I am introducing The Headwater Protection and Restoration Act today that would work to help alleviate the pending threat to our Nation's water supply. My legislation takes into consideration the desperate need to create healthy forests in the lands around our Nation's water supply. This bill will not only help provide relief from this threat in the short term, but will help to create the necessary infrastructure to ensure that it does not happen again. It will give us a long term solution to this desperate problem. This would be achieved through steady, judicious, and effective forest management over time. This displays a much better and more cost effective strategy than dealing with the management of catastrophic events under emergency circumstances. Today we find ourselves poised in a position to take steps to help avert this potential disaster before it starts. It is my hope that I will be joined by my colleagues here in the Senate to act swiftly on my legislation before it is too late.