Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, I come to the floor of the Senate to briefly state my thoughts about a component of the bill under consideration, the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005. I commend both the Senate Finance and HELP Committees for their hard work, and tireless efforts to work towards a bill that we all can support. A variety of Colorado companies, including Arch Coal, IBM, Gates Rubber, and Qwest Communications, have been carefully following the debate on pension reform. These companies are significant employers in Colorado, and they contribute to the State's economy in countless measures. Many companies, including these, have been affected by the recent court decision Cooper v. IBM, and in turn I have been paying particular attention to the development and treatment of so-called hybrid pension plans. Hybrid pension plans, a combination of a defined benefit and defined contribution, were ruled illegal by one judge, saying that they were discriminatory based on age, since younger workers had more time to accrue more value in their pension than older workers. Since the court decision, IBM and many other companies with similar hybrid plans have been trying to interpret the court's ruling, and the future direction of their pension plans. These companies are trying to do the right thing for their workers. Currently, they are caught in a situation that does not give them any clear guidance or direction on how to help their employees. As this bill is currently written, it does not provide the necessary validation for the 1,700 existing hybrid pension plans and their 9 million participants and opens the door for more litigation for more companies. If new conversion mandates are put into place, many of these employers may be forced to leave the defined pension system altogether, possibly reducing retirement security for workers. As everyone knows, the defined benefit system is a voluntary system. When companies first started offering defined benefit plans for workers it was an excellent benefit for workers and for their companies. However, now many companies are forced to give up offering defined benefit and the hybrid pension plans because of the legal uncertainty. While I commend Chairman Grassley and Chairman Enzi for working with their committees and reaching a compromise, I cannot help but point out that this issue is not completely addressed in S. 1783. My hope is that once this bill reaches the conference committee, hybrid pension plans will be a point of focus. I would be happy to work with my colleagues on this issue. It is important to Colorado, and important to many other companies nationwide.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the events of the past few months remind us of the vital role of first responders in responding to natural disasters and terrorists attacks. First responders are just that: the first to respond. When they arrive on the scene, they often face fluid and volatile situations whereupon they are required to make split- second decisions, each of which has the potential to affect thousands of lives. For this reason, it is important that our first responders receive the training and experience needed to make critical life saving decisions under emergency circumstances. I believe that an essential element of preparing our first responders is to provide them with hands-on experience in simulated, real-world training environments. The importance of real world training was called to my attention by a visit to the Technology Training Center (TTC) in Pueblo, CO. There, I witnessed first hand the tools at our disposal to equip our first responders with the training they need, specifically in the context of rail and mass transit. Already aware of the training facilities at the disposal of our first responders through the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), TTC's potential to fill a gap in the rail and mass transit environment became apparent. Congress recognized the need to train first responders in the 1998 Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-119, and accompanying report. There, Congress stated that, while the Federal Government plays an important role in preventing and responding to these types of threats, state and local public safety personnel are typically first to respond to the scene when such incidents occur. As a result, Congress authorized the Attorney General to assist state and local public safety personnel in acquiring the specialized training and equipment necessary to safely respond to and manage terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. On April 30, 1998, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to develop and administer training and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies to better prepare them against this threat. To execute this mission, the Office of Justice Programs established the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to develop and administer a national Domestic Preparedness Program. Upon passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, the ODP was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security from OJP. In 2003, a number of grant programs and functions from other DHS components were consolidated with ODP, including the NDPC, under a new DHS agency, the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). Today, SLGCP is the Federal Government's lead agency responsible for preparing the nation against terrorism by assisting states, local and tribal jurisdictions, and regional authorities as they prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist acts. SLGCP's ODP provides tailored training to enhance the capacity of States and local jurisdictions to prevent, deter, and respond safely and effectively to emergency situations. ODP draws upon a coalition of ``training partners'' in the development and delivery of state-of-the-art training programs. This coalition is composed of government facilities, academic institutions, and private organizations, all of which are committed to providing a variety of specialized training for emergency responders across the country. ODP's major training partner is the NDPC, through which ODP identifies, develops, tests, and delivers training to state and local emergency responders. The NDPC includes: ODP's Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP): CDP provides advanced, hands-on training to members of the emergency response community in the areas of command, advanced hazmat, and tactical operations. CDP is the only WMD training facility that provides hands-on training to civilian emergency responders in a toxic chemical agent environment. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT): NMIMT, a world leader in explosives research, serves as the lead NDPC partner for explosives, firearms, and incendiary devices training. New Mexico Tech also delivers a program on suicide bombing prevention. Louisiana State University (LSU): LSU provides training and expertise in the areas of law enforcement, bioterrorism, agricultural terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and mass casualty incidents. Texas A&M University System, Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX): TEEX develops and conducts national WMD preparedness training for all emergency response disciplines, as well as courses in incident management/unified command, threat and risk assessments, operations for public works, and WMD operations for emergency medical services. TEEX also conducts a structural collapse technician course to build state capabilities for urban search and rescue operations. Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site (NTS): NTS conducts radiological and nuclear training at NTS and via mobile training teams. It also develops and delivers radiological/nuclear mobile training at the awareness and operations levels and conducts train-the-trainer courses for first responders across the country. Although it consists of an impressive array of training facilities, the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium is not statutorily authorized and does not include a facility that is uniquely focused on emergency preparedness within the railroad and mass transit environment. Therefore, in addition to specifically authorizing the NDPC, this bill incorporates the Transportation Technology Center into the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, filling a critical gap in its current training agenda. TTC is a federally-owned, 52 square mile multi-modal testing and training facility in Pueblo, Colorado, operated by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). In 1985, TTC established an on site Emergency Response Training Center (ERTC) to train railroad officials to safely handle accidents involving tank cars carrying hazardous materials. The training proved to be so successful that attendance was opened up to other emergency responders. TTC now serves not only the transportation service industry, but also the public sector emergency response community, the chemical industry, government agencies, and emergency response contractors from all over the world. Each year, an average of 1,700 first responders--from Portland, ME to Portland, OR--travel to Pueblo, CO, to participate in TTC's training program. Former participants include over 600 fire departments and entities from 45 states; 16 state police agencies from Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington; and numerous government agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Customs Service, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Environmental Protection Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board. In its 20 year history, the facility has trained more than 20,000 students worldwide. The ERTC is regarded as the ``graduate school'' of hazmat training because of its focus on hands-on, true to life, training exercises on actual rail vehicles, including tank cars and passenger rail cars. The ERTC is uniquely positioned to teach emergency response for railway- related emergencies with 69 railway freight cars, 15 railroad passenger cars, 25 highway cargo tanks, van trailers, and intermodal containers, and computer work stations equipped with the latest emergency response software. The Passenger Railcar Security and Integrity Training Facility is currently being developed to test various inspection, response, and remediation techniques' effectiveness for mitigation to incidents involving passenger railcars. This facility focuses on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive incidents and other activities associated with potential terrorist events. The distinctive environment of TTC allows testing and training activities to be carried out at a remote Colorado location without disruption to the flow of passenger and rail traffic in and around urban areas. Its inclusion in the NDPC presents a unique opportunity to enhance technology and training that will improve our Nation's ability to prevent, minimize, and respond to potential terrorist attacks similar to those recently seen in London and Madrid. It is for these reasons, among others, that I rise today to introduce a bill statutorily authorizing the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, as expanded to include the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, and providing for its coordination and use by the Department of Homeland Security in training the Nation's first responders.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the events of the past few months remind us of the vital role of first responders in responding to natural disasters and terrorists attacks. First responders are just that: the first to respond. When they arrive on the scene, they often face fluid and volatile situations whereupon they are required to make split- second decisions, each of which has the potential to affect thousands of lives. For this reason, it is important that our first responders receive the training and experience needed to make critical life saving decisions under emergency circumstances. I believe that an essential element of preparing our first responders is to provide them with hands-on experience in simulated, real-world training environments. The importance of real world training was called to my attention by a visit to the Technology Training Center (TTC) in Pueblo, CO. There, I witnessed first hand the tools at our disposal to equip our first responders with the training they need, specifically in the context of rail and mass transit. Already aware of the training facilities at the disposal of our first responders through the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), TTC's potential to fill a gap in the rail and mass transit environment became apparent. Congress recognized the need to train first responders in the 1998 Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-119, and accompanying report. There, Congress stated that, while the Federal Government plays an important role in preventing and responding to these types of threats, state and local public safety personnel are typically first to respond to the scene when such incidents occur. As a result, Congress authorized the Attorney General to assist state and local public safety personnel in acquiring the specialized training and equipment necessary to safely respond to and manage terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. On April 30, 1998, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to develop and administer training and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies to better prepare them against this threat. To execute this mission, the Office of Justice Programs established the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to develop and administer a national Domestic Preparedness Program. Upon passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, the ODP was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security from OJP. In 2003, a number of grant programs and functions from other DHS components were consolidated with ODP, including the NDPC, under a new DHS agency, the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). Today, SLGCP is the Federal Government's lead agency responsible for preparing the nation against terrorism by assisting states, local and tribal jurisdictions, and regional authorities as they prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist acts. SLGCP's ODP provides tailored training to enhance the capacity of States and local jurisdictions to prevent, deter, and respond safely and effectively to emergency situations. ODP draws upon a coalition of ``training partners'' in the development and delivery of state-of-the-art training programs. This coalition is composed of government facilities, academic institutions, and private organizations, all of which are committed to providing a variety of specialized training for emergency responders across the country. ODP's major training partner is the NDPC, through which ODP identifies, develops, tests, and delivers training to state and local emergency responders. The NDPC includes: ODP's Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP): CDP provides advanced, hands-on training to members of the emergency response community in the areas of command, advanced hazmat, and tactical operations. CDP is the only WMD training facility that provides hands-on training to civilian emergency responders in a toxic chemical agent environment. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT): NMIMT, a world leader in explosives research, serves as the lead NDPC partner for explosives, firearms, and incendiary devices training. New Mexico Tech also delivers a program on suicide bombing prevention. Louisiana State University (LSU): LSU provides training and expertise in the areas of law enforcement, bioterrorism, agricultural terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and mass casualty incidents. Texas A&M University System, Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX): TEEX develops and conducts national WMD preparedness training for all emergency response disciplines, as well as courses in incident management/unified command, threat and risk assessments, operations for public works, and WMD operations for emergency medical services. TEEX also conducts a structural collapse technician course to build state capabilities for urban search and rescue operations. Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site (NTS): NTS conducts radiological and nuclear training at NTS and via mobile training teams. It also develops and delivers radiological/nuclear mobile training at the awareness and operations levels and conducts train-the-trainer courses for first responders across the country. Although it consists of an impressive array of training facilities, the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium is not statutorily authorized and does not include a facility that is uniquely focused on emergency preparedness within the railroad and mass transit environment. Therefore, in addition to specifically authorizing the NDPC, this bill incorporates the Transportation Technology Center into the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, filling a critical gap in its current training agenda. TTC is a federally-owned, 52 square mile multi-modal testing and training facility in Pueblo, Colorado, operated by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). In 1985, TTC established an on site Emergency Response Training Center (ERTC) to train railroad officials to safely handle accidents involving tank cars carrying hazardous materials. The training proved to be so successful that attendance was opened up to other emergency responders. TTC now serves not only the transportation service industry, but also the public sector emergency response community, the chemical industry, government agencies, and emergency response contractors from all over the world. Each year, an average of 1,700 first responders--from Portland, ME to Portland, OR--travel to Pueblo, CO, to participate in TTC's training program. Former participants include over 600 fire departments and entities from 45 states; 16 state police agencies from Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington; and numerous government agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Customs Service, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Environmental Protection Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board. In its 20 year history, the facility has trained more than 20,000 students worldwide. The ERTC is regarded as the ``graduate school'' of hazmat training because of its focus on hands-on, true to life, training exercises on actual rail vehicles, including tank cars and passenger rail cars. The ERTC is uniquely positioned to teach emergency response for railway- related emergencies with 69 railway freight cars, 15 railroad passenger cars, 25 highway cargo tanks, van trailers, and intermodal containers, and computer work stations equipped with the latest emergency response software. The Passenger Railcar Security and Integrity Training Facility is currently being developed to test various inspection, response, and remediation techniques' effectiveness for mitigation to incidents involving passenger railcars. This facility focuses on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive incidents and other activities associated with potential terrorist events. The distinctive environment of TTC allows testing and training activities to be carried out at a remote Colorado location without disruption to the flow of passenger and rail traffic in and around urban areas. Its inclusion in the NDPC presents a unique opportunity to enhance technology and training that will improve our Nation's ability to prevent, minimize, and respond to potential terrorist attacks similar to those recently seen in London and Madrid. It is for these reasons, among others, that I rise today to introduce a bill statutorily authorizing the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, as expanded to include the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, and providing for its coordination and use by the Department of Homeland Security in training the Nation's first responders.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we are now less than a month removed from the successful Iraqi referendum that was approved by more than 75 percent of Iraqis. This vote marked a new dawn in the Arab world, a democratically created constitution written by Iraqis and approved by the general electorate made up of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. This is quite a change from the decades in which a militant dictator ruled over Iraq, with the threat of death hanging over the people for any harsh word directed toward their central government. It is truly a new day in Iraq and a new time. Of course, some would rather ignore the strides that the Iraqi people have taken. They would rather focus on grim milestones that neither reflect the true sacrifice that has been made nor give a clear indication of how far the Iraqis have come to independence. The men and women of our Armed Forces have created an environment in Iraq that has given Iraqis a chance for democracy. This chance is born from the blood, sweat, and tears of our servicemen and women. They deserve our gratitude and honor. Friday marks Veterans Day and it is fitting that every year we take time to pause and reflect on those who have served in the military to protect our way of life and advance freedom around the globe. While we celebrate this year, we do so with heavy hearts knowing that there are many future war veterans who are currently serving in the theater abroad. As they have done in the past, our armed forces have taken up the challenge yet again to defend our freedoms from violent extremists to ensure that future generations of Americans can continue to prosper. Many of these war veterans have already served previous tours in Iraq, and my thoughts and prayers go out for another safe return home. Many thousands of troops who are engaged in Iraq are Coloradoans. For example, the 10th Combat Support Hospital that left Fort Carson for Iraq in October. This medical unit is being deployed not only to treat our injured servicemen and women, but also any civilian that is brought in to their trauma unit regardless of affiliation. I want to take a minute to pause and reflect on that. Our trained medical doctors and technicians will be using their skills to save the lives of not only Coalition Forces, but anyone who is brought in--including insurgents. They might be saving the very lives of those that would do great harm to our soldiers. These are the types of actions that show what kind of men and women serve in the armed forces. These are the types of actions that show what freedom and democracy can bring to a region long devoid of it. The individuals in our armed forces continue to shine throughout the country with remarkable levels of service. Individuals like Col. James West of Palisade, CO. Colonel West recently received a Bronze Star after distinguishing himself during two consecutive tours of duty in Iraq. He served as a Senior Program Manager in the Project and Contracting Office in Baghdad, Iraq from December 2004 to September of this year. Because of the critical nature of his position and the need to maintain the lines of communication and trust he developed with the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the primary Iraqi owned operating companies, Colonel West volunteered himself for two consecutive tours of duty. During this time, his leadership in the field provided the foundation necessary to achieve the goal of rebuilding the Iraqi Oil production capacity to pre-war levels. The Department of Defense and the Air Force believe that his professionalism and devotion to duty merit special recognition. I honor him for his service to our country and congratulate him on his well-deserved Bronze Star. More than just being engaged in fighting the radical insurgents who have polluted the country, our men and women like Colonel West are risking their lives to reach out to the Iraqi people to show them the heart that is behind the uniform. From the Army engineers throughout the country helping to rebuild the infrastructure, to ordinance disposal units helping to cleanse farmland from explosives left from decades of neglect, our troops continue to make a positive difference in the lives of Iraqis. It is important to put our military's efforts into the proper perspective. The enormous progress that has been made in Iraq is the real story. It was only 2 \1/2\ years ago that the Hussein regime was in power terrorizing large portions of the Iraqi population. And now just 9 months after they elected their own leaders for the first time, the Iraqi people have approved a historical referendum by an overwhelming majority. These are the milestones we should be celebrating--the ones that could only be achieved through the sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. This Friday marks Veterans Day. Let us not forget our future war veterans who are gallantly serving the cause of freedom abroad. And let us remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to help bring democracy to Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I honor the life of PFC Tyler Ryan MacKenzie who was assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division. His service to the U.S. Army led Private MacKenzie of Evans, CO, to Fort Campbell, KY, and eventually Iraq. Last Wednesday his life, along with three of his fellow soldiers, came to an end when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb. Today we have many remarkable men and women serving in our military with a strong sense of dedication to the United States. Tyler himself came from a line of military servicemen in his family and he too felt an obligation to serve in the Armed Forces. Private MacKenzie's family is proud of his service to our country. The democratic milestones reached in Iraq in the last 2 years would not have been possible without dedication of our brave men and women in uniform and support provided by their loved ones. At this difficult time my heart goes out to Tyler's family and all those who take part in the noble cause of protecting freedoms that we all enjoy. I am thankful for Tyler MacKenzie and those that preceded him in making the ultimate sacrifice. Their lives should be honored by firmly resisting the enemy and completing the mission. In Honor of Army Specialist Darren Howe

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will talk about my amendment for a moment or two, but before I do, I have some cosponsors I would like to add to the amendment: Senators Salazar, DeMint, Alexander, and Cantwell.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will take a little time to lay out the history of the cleanup of Rocky Flats after it was decided to close the facility. It was a nuclear production facility that produced plutonium triggers which were used for nuclear weaponry. When I first got involved in this issue, the plan called for 60 years to clean up Rocky Flats, costing somewhere around $35 billion. In 1999, we were able to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy and the contractor that for $7 billion, we could have it cleaned up in 6 years. So here we are in 2005 and we have cleaned up the facility 14 months ahead of what anybody ever imagined. When we first came up, everybody was snickering and saying that would not happen. But we did a key thing; we put incentives in the contract which encouraged various members of the workforce, including the contractors, to get the job done on time. In this case they got it done ahead of time and ended up saving lots of money. This means we are cleaned up 14 months ahead of time. That means probably close to $500 to $600 million in savings because we are not going to have to pay for it next year. As a result of this early cleanup we are going to have about 70 workers out at Rocky Flats who are going to get cut short on their health insurance benefits and cut short on their life insurance. It is very difficult to try to get insurance after you have been working around a nuclear facility for 15, 16, 17, or 18 years. Insurance companies don't like to insure them, and if you do get insurance, at least it is very expensive. It seems to me it is a matter of fairness to take care of these 70 workers. The reason it is important to other cleanup sites around the country, and this is where I think the Department of Energy is shortsighted--if you put in incentive contracts to get cleanup at these other sites around the country, getting them done on time or even early, as we did in Colorado, if you treat the workers fairly, I think the workforce at those cleanup sites will be willing to step in and participate in the early cleanup efforts. The purpose of my amendment is to take care of the 70 or so workers who got shortchanged because of early closure at Rocky Flats. But more importantly, I want to see cleanup of these nuclear facilities all over the country. There are a number of States that are going to be impacted. A lot of us want to see these sites cleaned up for various reasons, not the least of which is to make sure we have environmental cleanup so we have a better environment in which to live here in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in this particular amendment. I think it is very important. Let me take a couple of examples. Workers such as Doug Woodard and Leo Chavez now find themselves with either severely reduced benefits or no benefits at all. Doug started work at Rocky Flats all the way back in 1982 and then was responsible for monitoring radiation contamination at the site. He missed qualifying for the medical benefits by less than 2 months. For Leo Chavez, who worked at Rocky Flats for 17 years, DOE's treatment was even worse. The Department of Energy thanked him for his service and showed him to the door 6 working days before he qualified for lifetime medical benefits. Let me repeat that. That was 6 days before he qualified for medical benefits. Yet his workers, then other workers at the plant, walked away with those benefits. It seems to me it is a matter of fairness. The Department of Energy has made the point they do not want to set any precedent. In this particular amendment, we have narrowed it down to the time length and when they qualify. We have narrowed it down to these workers at Rocky Flats. I believe this is an important amendment if you want to see rapid cleanup occur at these nuclear sites because the workers have to buy into the program. If they do not buy into the program, then you are not going to have early cleanup. I understand my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, might be down to the floor. I want to take this opportunity, before my time runs out, to thank him for his work and effort. I thank Senator Cantwell and other Members of the Senate who have agreed to cosponsor this amendment because they have situations in their States similar to ours in Colorado. We all look forward to getting early cleanup, and hopefully the cleanup at Rocky Flats will set an example for the rest of the country. The faster we have cleanup, the less money the American taxpayers will have to pay. That is the bottom line. We are required to get this cleanup done. If we can do it and save taxpayer dollars, we need to do that. In this case, from the original plan it saves billions upon billions of dollars. Then we modified the plan, and it is well over $500 million we are going to save. We need to encourage this to happen throughout the country. I am proud of the workers at Rocky Flats. It wouldn't have happened without their dedication and effort. We need to make sure every worker at Rocky Flats will walk away from this cleanup being proud and feeling they were treated fairly. I urge my colleagues, again, to join us in righting a wrong that I think has been perpetrated by the Department of Energy.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, may I be recognized for an additional cosponsor, and that is Senator Graham.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the incredible achievements of the workers at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and to offer an amendment on the behalf of these workers. Rocky Flats is located just a few miles northwest of Denver, Co, and for over four decades, this facility was the Department of Energy's dedicated site for manufacturing plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. This highly classified production facility was run by over 8,000 Coloradoans who worked day and night for most of the cold war and used some of the most dangerous substances known to man, including plutonium, beryllium, and uranium. The workers at Rocky Flats were devoted to their job and believed in their mission. They risked their lives on a daily basis, but did so with the knowledge that their efforts were contributing to the security of our Nation. When plutonium pit production ended in 1991, it was unclear what role these workers would play in the cleanup of Rocky Flats. They could have walked away from the job. Yet the workers at Rocky Flats were not ready to quit. They saw a new challenge in front of them--the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Their task was anything but simple. Five large plutonium processing facilities, encompassing over a million square feet, were highly contaminated with dangerous radioactive material. The contamination was so severe that these buildings were ranked among the top 10 most contaminated facilities in the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex. I, however, had faith in the workers at Rocky Flats. I am pleased that the workers at Rocky Flats have not disappointed us. The cleanup at Rocky Flats was declared completed on October 12 of this year, a full year and 3 months ahead of schedule. We must keep in mind that most of these workers had to literally develop an entire new skill set. They went from manufacturing plutonium pits to dismantling over 1,400 highly radioactive gloveboxes. They tore down buildings while wearing stiff environmental protection suits. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were forced to use the highest level of respiratory protection available. Listen to some of the Rocky Flats workers' accomplishments: All weapons grade plutonium was removed in 2003. More than 1,400 contaminated glove boxes and hundreds of process tanks have been removed. More than 400,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste has been removed. All 802 facilities have been demolished. All four uranium production facilities have been demolished. All five plutonium production facilities have been demolished. All 360 sites of soil contamination have been remediated. The last shipment of transuranic waste was shipped this past April. Completion of the cleanup--1 year and 3 months ahead of schedule. Just as important, these workers were extraordinarily productive even though they knew they were essentially working themselves out of a job. With the completion of the cleanup and the closure of Rocky Flats, they knew they would have to find employment elsewhere. There was no guarantee for a new job. Despite knowing they were going to lose their jobs, the workers at Rocky Flats remained highly motivated and totally committed to their cleanup mission. Given the sacrifice and dedication demonstrated by these workers, you would think assisting those workers who lose their retirement benefits because of the early completion of the cleanup would be a top priority for the Department of Energy. After all, these workers saved the Department billions upon billions in cleanup costs. Last year, however, it became clear that the cleanup at Rocky Flats would be completed much earlier than anyone expected. The workers were supportive of early closure, but were concerned that some of their colleagues would lose retirement benefits because of early closure. I shared their concern and requested in last year's Defense authorization bill that the Department of Energy provide Congress with a report on the number of workers who would not receive retirement benefits and the cost of providing these benefits. After a lengthy delay, the Department of Energy reported that about 29 workers at three cleanup sites would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical benefits because of the closure, and the cost of providing benefits to these workers, according to DOE's report, was just over $12 million. To my dismay, the Department of Energy report was woefully incomplete. I was informed later at least 50 workers would have qualified for retirement benefits had the Department of Energy bothered to include those workers who had already been laid off because of the accelerated closure schedule. This means as many as 75 workers at Rocky Flats will lose their pension, medical benefits or, in some cases, both because they worked faster, less expensively, and achieved more than they were supposed to. They not only worked themselves out of a job, but they also worked themselves out of retirement benefits and, most importantly, medical care. Workers such as Doug Woodard and Leo Chavez now find themselves with either severely reduced benefits or no benefits at all. Doug started work at Rocky Flats all the way into 1982 and was responsible for monitoring radiation contamination at the site. He missed qualifying for medical benefits by less than 2 months. For Leo Chavez, who worked at Rocky Flats for 17 years, DOE's treatment was even worse. The Department of Energy thanked him for his service and showed him the door 6 working days before he qualified for lifetime medical benefits-- I repeat, just 6 days before he qualified to medical benefits. Sadly, the Department of Energy has failed to step up to the plate and help these workers who did so much to save American taxpayers so much money. Instead, the Department of Energy has played the numbers game with these workers. The Department argues that the contract signed with the workers already provided sufficient incentives, and those individuals already received an additional year of service time. Yet the Department will not bring up the numbers that matter most. Here are a couple of examples. We saved over $35 billion, the amount of money the Department of Energy in 1995 thought would be needed to clean up Rocky Flats. That was with the 60-year cleanup schedule. Then we came in with a plan to dramatically shorten that length of time by one-tenth. The amount of money the American people saved when employees at Rocky Flats agreed in 1999 to accelerate the cleanup at Rocky Flats was $28 billion. Now, $600 million exists. That is the amount of money the American taxpayer saved on top of the $28 billion because the workers at Rocky Flats exceeded even the accelerated cleanup schedule by over a year. The Department of Energy does not talk about the hundreds of millions the American people will save when workers at the Savannah River, Hanford, and Idaho cleanup sites see they will not be punished for accelerating their cleanup activities. Many of the workers at Rocky Flats have served our Nation for over two decades. They have risked their lives, day in and day out, first by building nuclear weapons components and then by cleaning up some of the most contaminated buildings in the world. All they have asked for in return is to be treated with fairness and respect. To the great disappointment of the workers at Rocky Flats, the Department of Energy has no intentions of keeping its end of the bargain. These workers would have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2035, as originally predicted. More importantly, these workers would have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to December 15 of 2006, a little over a year, as the site cleanup contract specified. By accelerating the cleanup by over a year and saving the American taxpayer over $600 million, many of these workers will be left without the medical, health, and life insurance benefits they deserve and have earned. The Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE cleanup clean site, workers at other sites around the country are watching to see how the Department of Energy treats the workers at Rocky Flats. Unfortunately, they have seen how the Department of Energy has failed to step up and provide retirement benefits to those who have earned it. The workers at other sites now have no incentive to accelerate cleanup. The question is, why should they? The Department of Energy hasn't lifted a finger to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It would be foolish for the workers at other sites, such as Hanford and Santa Ana River, to think the DOE would act fairly with them. To me, the Department's decision is penny wise and pound foolish. By refusing to provide these benefits, the Department saves money in the short term. Yet by discouraging the workers from supporting acceleration, the Department is going to cost the American taxpayer billions in additional funding in the long run. To correct this mistake, I offer an amendment that will provide some of the benefits to those workers who will have lost them because of early closure. I am pleased my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this important amendment. This amendment is limited and narrowly focused. It provides health, medical, and a life insurance benefits to those workers who would have qualified had the site remained open until December 15, 2006, the date of the site cleanup contract. This amendment does not add to the budget. In fact, all it does is direct that a very small portion of the money already provided in this bill for Rocky Flats be used to help those workers. To be clear, these benefits are not an additional bonus for a job well done, nor is it a going away present for two decades of service. The benefits--the health, medical, and life insurance benefits--are what these workers have already earned, nothing more and nothing less. Some might suggest these workers already received a bonus and a year's worth of service time as part of their contract. Yet by closing a year early, the Department of Energy has taken many of the bonuses away from the workers, including the year of service time promised to them. The workers at Rocky Flats are ordinary people who achieved some extraordinary goals. They made the impossible possible. We, in this Senate, have an obligation to correct the injustice being perpetrated by the Department of Energy. In my view, it is time for this Senate to correct this mistake. I have, in the Senate, a number of illustrations to share with Members of the Senate. This is a picture of Rocky Flats in 1955. The whole area was covered with construction. Most believed at that time it would take 70 years and cost the American taxpayer $35 billion to clean up Rocky Flats. The Department of Energy found several buildings in this complex to be among the most contaminated in the country. Building 771, in particular, was dubbed by the national media as the most dangerous building in Colorado. Now I will proceed to some of the challenges we had. This picture reflects the glove boxes. The most dangerous task the workers at Rocky Flats had was to dismantle and eventually ship out over 1,400 highly contaminated glove boxes. The workers placed their hands in the gloves and worked with the contaminated material inside the boxes to break these down and eventually ship them out. It was a real challenge. They had been used primarily to fashion the plutonium pits and other nuclear weapon components. Obviously, they were highly contaminated. Eventually, they had to be shipped out as a whole unit in order to dismantle these glove boxes. The next illustration is the cleanup and demolishing of buildings at Rocky Flats, another dangerous task. The actual demolishing of the buildings and structures of Rocky Flats occurred with some very contaminated buildings. Specialized machinery had to be brought in and extra care had to be used to ensure the safety of all involved, as well as to prevent radiation exposure. The workers had to learn how to work in a new way in these cleanup processes. They had to use many techniques to protect themselves in buildings in which the very same workers had been working not too long before, building triggers for the same nuclear weapons. The next illustration is Rocky Flats in 2005. I want the Members to compare the two illustrations. This is Rocky Flats before cleanup; this is Rocky Flats after cleanup. We are getting back to the prairie and the plains in Colorado. We have a great view of the mountains, with no buildings. This is Rocky Flats 2 weeks ago. There are no buildings, no waste deposits, no fences, not even asphalt. All this remains an open space. The workers at Rocky Flats achieved this. They should be proud about saving the American taxpayer over $600 million. They completed the mission a year and 3 months ahead of schedule. They worked safely and in a manner that we can all be proud. To give an idea of the kind of people we are talking about, here are some of the workers at Rocky Flats. This is a group of them. They are ordinary people. They performed their duties with professionalism and extraordinary competence. They made the impossible possible and achieved more than we ever expected. They deserve the benefits they would have received had they not worked as hard or had they waited until the date specified in the site cleanup time practice. They saved the American people over $600 million. It is the least we can do to provide them with the benefits they have earned. I remind the Senate, it is time to act, it is time to correct this mistake. I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly, if I may. First of all, I would like to state for the record, I was the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on Armed Services before my good friend and colleague from Alabama took over that responsibility. I congratulate him for a job well done. There are some very difficult issues relating to cleanup. Rocky Flats is the first major nuclear facility in the country that has been cleaned up. This program has not been moved forward like it should be moving forward. I think it is important we leave a good taste with the workers because workers at other plants are obviously going to be watching what happens at Rocky Flats. I would like to comment, the $15 million we have in here does not add to the spending picture. It is out of the savings that comes from early closure, which is about $600 million. So you can bring it down to about $575 million. I think that is still a pretty good savings. My point is, workers at these other nuclear sites, they will be less willing to buy into these incentive contracts if they feel somehow or other the members cannot get health insurance and life insurance. We already have limited this amendment. We limit it to health insurance. How would you like to be a citizen out there shopping for health insurance, being exposed to radiation to one degree or another for 15 years? Insurance companies do not insure those kinds of risks. So it is tough. For life insurance, it is the same thing because the incidence of cancer and everything is well known. It is elevated whenever there is increased exposure to radiation, particularly in the amounts we are talking about being handled out there in Rocky Flats. They do not care whether it is a little amount of exposure or a lot of exposure. A little amount of exposure would not be a problem with a lot of them, but it is the same concern that comes out of the insurance company; they do not try to differentiate. So we have workers out there, and we are just talking about their health insurance and life insurance. I think that it is a small price to pay to be fair to these workers. My hope is we can continue to negotiate with the Department of Energy. I hope we continue to negotiate with the staff and my good friend from Alabama. Perhaps maybe we can tighten this down if we have to, but we have already tightened it down a lot. We have it listed to a very specific group of employees from certain dates. We have tightened it down just to insurance and health benefits and nothing else. But we will look and work with them to see if perhaps maybe we can find a different way so we do not set a precedent. I am sensitive to that, that we do not set an unfair precedent. But we have to be fair to the workers, too. I thank the Armed Services Committee and my good friend from Alabama. I know they have some real concerns. They have shown a willingness to want to work with us, so I thank them for that gesture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I miss the leadership on the committee and the committee. I like to stay involved in many of the issues the committee is still working on because of the importance of the many military installations in my own State and because it is good for the country. I have some problems with the amendment proposed by Senators Levin and Reed. The first is it is reducing a program that has already been reduced at $1 billion by the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 and over a longer period of time, from 2006 to 2007, for a total of up to $5 billion in this very vital program for our Nation's security. The other concern I have is, the money they are taking here is going to another program that hasn't spent all the money we gave it last fiscal year. I don't see a need, when they haven't spent all their money in the previous year. I talk about the program itself because I think sometimes this amendment brings up where we are going in missile defense and some of the questions there. I understand the amendment eliminates $30 million for long lead funding for ground-based interceptor missile defense and then $20 million for associated silo construction. Currently, we have nine ground based-interceptors emplaced to protect the United States against a long-term limited ballistic missile attack. The $50 million is supposed to be transferred to what we call the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which is fully funded in the bill we have before us and is $7 million more than we had last year. My understanding is the same program last year had $107 million in unobligated funds remaining after the 2005 fiscal year. So an additional $1.6 billion is funded for DOE nonproliferation programs in addition to this. I think we have put plenty of money in that area. We do have a need in missile defense, and we should not back away from our plan or obligation to develop missile defense because of threats that we potentially could have from countries such as North Korea and Iran, for example. This amendment unnecessarily delays by 1 year the fielding of the ground-based interceptors scheduled for 2009. We simply cannot afford to delay it any more because we do have real and imminent dangers as based on the testimony from General Cartwright, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. I do believe North Korea is a threat. We have already had testimony a number of years back from the Director of Intelligence that missiles launched out of Korea have the capability of reaching our west coast. Now North Korea is ready to flight test another ICBM that many of us feel--and we have been informed--will reach the United States. Iran may have such a capability in 2015, according to the DIA. So we are facing a real threat. We have already acted on this issue in the Defense appropriations bill. The long lead funding for ground-based interceptors 31 through 40 was included in this year's fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill. And in the report language, the bill added $200 million to the budget request ``to maintain the production schedule for ground-based interceptors.'' With this amendment, we are backing off of that commitment we put in the appropriations bill. I don't think we should run counter to the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. ALLARD. I am.

Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.

Mr. ALLARD. That is right. We would be reversing the Senate action on that. I appreciate the chairman emphasizing that point. I do think it is important that we move ahead. Myself and two other members on the Armed Services Committee made a special trip out to the southern part of the test bed. We went to where they were launching the target missile. We have had a few failures, but you learn from failures. Our testing is not intended to be 100 percent successful. It is spiral development. We are pushing the system to its limits. Occasionally you learn from failures. We have had four successful prototype launches, and of the operationally configured booster we now have, we have had three successful flights. One of the problems we have in some of these tests is the target we were supposed to be launching wasn't launching. So we made a special trip to look at what was happening with missile defense in the southern part of the test bed. I have to tell you, it is very impressive. There are three aspects to it. There is short range, midrange and long range. The role of the naval forces in this program is very impressive. Ground forces are coming along. Now we are working on some of the longer range missiles through the Air Force. I was impressed. The target missile, unfortunately, the first time it didn't launch was because of a computer glitch. That has been corrected. The second one was because you had the wrong part in the wrong place and the arms, when they were supposed to retract for the missile, didn't come back all the way so the missile didn't launch. This was human error, things that were errors that should not have happened. They have been corrected. It didn't have to do with new technology. It is things we have had. We have been launching for years missiles out of silos, and this was the wrong part in the wrong place at the wrong time so launch did not occur. We have run into these kind of things. Hopefully, they don't happen again. Fundamentally, the technology is there. We need to rely on it. The threat is there, and we need to be prepared for it. I rise in opposition to the Levin-Reed amendment and thank Chairman Warner for giving me an opportunity to make a few comments in this regard.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Arizona for putting us in a position where the Members can speak. I have not had an opportunity to speak on the bill as a whole, so I would like to take time on that, and if someone shows up in opposition to the amendment, I will yield the floor to them to speak. Now that the amendment has been laid aside, I rise today to speak on the pending business of the Senate, which is the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, which is an extension of the budget resolution we adopted earlier this year. I am very pleased that we have a budget and cannot express enough how important it is that Congress craft and follow a fiscal plan every year. I have long advocated for a fiscal plan that includes strict rules for controlling the appetite of big Government and reins in spending. We are beholden to the taxpayer and to future generations of taxpayers. The annual budget process should reflect that responsibility. We must bear that in mind today as we debate this very important piece of legislation before us. The 2006 budget resolution set forth a reconciliation instruction for savings of $34.7 billion over the 5-year period of the resolution. Congress has not attempted to restrain mandatory spending through reconciliation since 1997. As my colleagues are well aware, mandatory spending represents the portion of the Federal Government that is on autopilot. Annual appropriators in the House and Senate allocate funds accounting for roughly one-third of the Federal Government's expenditures as fully two-thirds of the spending is on cruise control. I am encouraged we are making an attempt to rein in even a modest amount of mandatory spending. This entire process is, indeed, a test of the body's willpower and integrity. Can we manage to make a few hard choices today to protect the interests of our grandchildren? Since 1974, Congress has passed 19 different reconciliation bills, and 16 of those survived Presidential veto to become law. Since 1990, reconciliation has been used three times to trim mandatory spending. In 1990, mandatory spending was reduced by $100 billion; the 1993 spending reconciliation cut $96 billion; and the 1997 bill, $118 billion over a 5-year period. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill before us today will reduce mandatory spending by $39.1 billion from 2006 to 2010 and $108.7 billion from 2006 through 2015. By recent historical standards and contrary to the doom and gloom of several statements made today on this floor, this is a modest reduction, no matter how you slice it. Once we adopt this reconciliation bill, we will be free to move on to do the two other reconciliation bills allowed under this year's budget resolution. One of those instructions will increase the statutory debt limit, a move I do not take lightly. The other of those reconciliation bills represents an instruction to the Senate Finance Committee to reduce the tax burden by up to $11 billion in fiscal year 2006 and up to $70 billion for the coming 5-year period. This reconciliation bill will extend a variety of existing tax policies that are very popular among the American public. For a change, I believe the popularity of these tax cuts is reflected in this body and I believe we will find a way to extend these important provisions. While this is a debate we will have in the near future, I can't help but express my feelings about that tax reconciliation. America's families are relying upon us to extend these new tax policies that have buoyed this economy in recent years. When considering the global war on terrorism, the broad economic impact of Hurricane Katrina, and the current cost of energy in this country, one might expect the economy to be sluggish. Economic data suggests the very opposite. It would be foolish for this body to try to tinker with the policies that have put more dollars in the pockets of America's workers to save, invest, or spend. Some colleagues may disagree with my assessment and with the desire our citizens have to hold on to more of their earnings. I look forward to taking part in that discussion in the future. And that is a discussion for the future. The resolution we have in the Chamber today is not a tax extension bill. The Senate must discuss and debate the merits of raising the debt limit and of extending the kinds of tax relief that keep this economy humming along in such a healthy way. But that debate will come later. Today we are talking about the first deficit reduction bill since 1997. This is a major effort. It has been 8 years since the Congress attempted to exercise any discretion over mandatory spending. There should be no illusions that this is a defining resolution. We are not just defining this Congress or our careers or the next series of campaign commercials; we are defining the scope of policies that will impact future generations. We must demonstrate that mandatory programs are not destined to grow willy- nilly and without thought for those who have to pay for them. We have heard a parade of statements these last 2 days that suggests there is simply no way to reduce these programs, that too many people are dependent on these programs for them to undergo any sort of scrutiny. I say to my colleagues we are not only accountable to those who benefit from these programs, but we are accountable to those who work every day in America to pay for these programs. We must be accountable to those who are on the brink of entering the workforce, who will face a greater tax burden if mandatory spending grows unchecked. The modest scope of this legislation suggests to me we can meet the myriad obligations to those drawing on these programs while righting the fiscal ship. Since 1997, we have made no substantive step to control runaway entitlement spending. This year's budget directed eight different Senate committees to take a stab at it through instructions totalling $34.7 billion in savings. The committees were free to find greater savings, and I am pleased to report that they did, to the tune of more than $39 billion. All eight Senate committees exceeded their instructions. This is no easy task and I commend the leaders of each of these eight committees. The Agriculture Committee's reduction has been scored by CBO at approximately $3 billion over the next 5 years. The package adopted by the committee leaves unchanged the structure of the farm program created in the last farm bill while achieving some savings in the farm commodity programs. Conservation programs are trimmed without impacting landowners' or farmers' existing contracts in any program. Agricultural research programs and the food stamps program are completely untouched. The Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs Committee portion of the bill is scored by CBO at a savings of $570 million. This legislation will streamline and simplify the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, combining the two entities into the Deposit Insurance Fund. Additional provisions modify the policies of the FDIC to reflect inflation and the growing size of deposits by increasing the retirement fund size the FDIC can insure from $100,000 to $250,000. Further, the Banking Committee has included provisions dealing with the Federal Housing Administration's inventory of defaulted mortgages. Today, in an effort to preserve a defaulted property as affordable housing, the FHA may sell the property at below-market rates. The foregone proceeds from these sales may total $10 million a year. This legislation will end FHA's permanent authority to sell such properties at below-market prices and authorize funds to support the rehabilitation of these properties. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee section of this legislation has been scored at $5.98 billion by CBO. The bulk of these savings are generated by the auction of spectrum recovered from broadcasters currently in the midst of the transition to digital signal broadcasting. This spectrum, a long held and used public resource, will enhance public safety communications and advance the long-awaited transition to DTV, or digital TV. Under this legislation, the FCC will be directed to auction licenses for this spectrum in early 2008 in anticipation of the full conversion to DTV in April of 2009. CBO scores the Energy and Natural Resources Committee title of this legislation at $2.5 billion, achieved largely through the long-needed opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain area. Careful development and production of oil and natural gas in ANWR will increase our national security and energy policy and do so with a minimal amount of impact on this remote region of Alaska. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to implement an environmentally sound and competitive oil and gas leasing program to ensure the fair market value for the resources to be leased. I applaud the Energy Committee for its efforts. The Environment and Public Works and Judiciary Committees each contribute somewhat more humble yet important titles to this legislation. The EPW portion, which is focused on the reform of the Equity Bonus Program, a part of the overall highway program, carries a CBO score $30 million. The Judiciary Committee title scores a deficit reduction of $578 million, largely through the recapture and subsequent sale of authorized but unused immigrant visas. The lion's share of savings in this legislation is contained in the titles belonging to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee. These provisions also include those provisions that are probably most exaggerated or vilified by the opponents of this package. According to CBO, the Finance Committee reconciles a deficit reduction of $10 billion over 5 years through a variety of complex and important changes under Medicaid and Medicare. These two programs, combined with Social Security, make up the bulk of our mandatory obligations that currently exist on autopilot. Today, mandatory spending accounts for 56 percent of all Federal spending. On the brink of the baby boomer retirement, that number is expected to grow to more than 62 percent in 10 years unless we can find the courage to do something about it. The path we are walking today is not sustainable. As I have mentioned, this reconciliation bill attempts to deal with this perfect storm by making minor adjustments to Medicaid and Medicare. CBO estimates that fiscal year 2005 outlays for Medicaid will total $184 billion. CBO's estimate for Medicare in 2005 is $332 billion, for a total between the programs of more than $515 billion-- more than half a trillion dollars--for fiscal year 2005. The estimated 5 year cost of these two mandatory programs is more than $3.4 trillion The Finance Commitee's reduction in this legislation is $10 billion. There is $3.4 trillion in mandatory spending reduced by $10 billion over 5 years. Our fiscal house is on fire, and we are talking about taking a gallon of water out of the river to fight it, and you would think we were drying up the river. So the Finance Committee title of this deficit reduction bill includes a net savings that some members of this body are exaggerating to mean the end of services as we know them. What very few opponents of this bill are talking about is that in addition to this savings there are some very wise spending initiatives that will serve to make Medicaid and Medicare more responsive to the needs of those who depend on them. As much as the doom and gloom set would like to talk about the deficit reduction we make in this resolution, we must also discuss the improvement and preservation of Medicaid and Medicare. While achieving significant spending reduction the Finance Committee language also reduces wasteful spending and targets resources to improve Medicaid, achieving savings at both the State and Federal level. These savings will enhance our ability to serve vulnerable populations. The language contained in this bill ensures continuity of coverage for low income children by shoring up funding for States facing shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and expanding enrollment activities. This bill will also expand Medicaid benefits to encourage the parents of severely disabled children to go to work and earn above-poverty wages while maintaining the services needed by their child. This legislation also cracks down on fraud in Medicaid. This bill closes loopholes in current Medicaid law concerning the transfer of assets to limit circumstances under which persons may intentionally shelter assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. New requirements are included for States to apply partial month penalties and to accumulate transfers in computing the period of ineligibility. Language in this bill creates useful new tools for existing third party recovery programs by implementing State false claims acts, which at the Federal level is the single most important tool taxpayers have to recover the billions of dollars stolen through fraud each year. The Medicaid section of this act also includes some prescription drug repayment reforms. This has been a hot topic in recent years, and I am pleased to see us take action. Under this bill, the average manufacturer price, AMP, is redefined to reflect discounts and rebates available to retail pharmacies and then uses that definition for payments to pharmacies and for the calculation of best price. The legislation before us further defines the weighted average manufacturer price, WAMP, as the basis for a new payment system for these drugs and for a new Federal upper limit for multiple source drugs. These reforms go beyond what was asked of the Finance Committee and reflect a commitment by this Senate to enact sensible reforms to better serve the public. I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and the Finance Committee on this matter. This legislation also makes a downpayment to respond to the health care needs of low income families affected by Hurricane Katrina by providing $1.8 billion to protect Medicaid benefits in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These are among the important provisions that will serve our Medicaid population and the taxpayer in this bill-- and these are provisions being ignored by the other side. Similarly, we see some commonsense initiatives in the Medicare portion of this bill. Of primary interest is the one percent increase in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule instead of a 4.4 percent cut in 2006. This is of paramount importance to those individuals on Medicare because it provides incentives for physicians to stay with the system. We are staring down the barrel of a punitive change in the Medicare system in the form of a fee reduction that is corrected in this bill-- that is good news for doctors and great news for patients. For Members of this body who represent rural populations, there are some very important provisions, including: an extension of the hold-harmless provisions for small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals from implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, an extension of the Medicare Dependent Hospital program that provides financial protections to rural hospitals with less than 100 beds that have a greater than 60 percent share of Medicare patients, and an expansion of coverage for preventative benefits under Federal Qualified Health Centers. This is good news. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions portion of this bill, which contains a significant savings and deficit reduction, accomplishes a great deal of reform and enhances service similar to the Finance portion. This title contains significant savings and deficit reduction. CBO estimates a savings of $9.8 billion, while priming our education infrastructure for the challenges of this new century. The Provisional Grant Assistance Program contained within this bill provides approximately $8.2 billion in grant assistance to Pell Grant eligible students studying math, science, technology, engineering and certain foreign languages. This is a very exciting provision that represents that ability of the HELP Committee and this Senate to listen. The rest of the world is gaining ground on America's sophisticated, high technology work force. For decades our technology and innovation has been the envy of the world and this provision seeks to ensure that we will continue to maintain that dynamic edge. A well-educated work force creates high-wage jobs and expands our horizons in every aspect of our culture. Again, this is a provision opponents of this bill seek to ignore, refusing to believe that there are noble programs among our sensible and necessary deficit reduction provisions. That is an all too brief summary of some of the provisions the eight committees receiving reconciliation instructions contributed to this legislation. The constant mischaracterization of this bill amazes me. I hope in some small way that I have been able to clarify some of these issues for the public. Under this bill, spending for low-income students, families, and patients will increase, and by no small margin. Without passage of this bill, more than $17 billion in loans, grants, sensible reforms, and new programs to benefit families, students, and patients disappears. That is money to aid in the education of 5.3 million low-income students. That is money to make Medicaid eligible 1.1 million low-income and disabled children. That is money for 700,000 low-income children to continue to receive benefits under SCHIP. Not only is this bill not the end of the world, it appears to me it is an enormous reform and expansion of numerous programs. It is a credit to the authors of this bill that there is still a gross savings to the taxpayer. Ninety percent of that savings for deficit reduction comes from a reduction in Federal programs that either do not impact low-income families or from receipts from the Federal Government's business relationships. The remaining 10 percent in reductions represents a serious restoration of fiscal responsibility in these programs--closing loopholes and preventing the unscrupulous gaming of the Medicaid system. Before I yield the floor, I feel it is important to remind my colleagues that this bill should be seen not as a landmark victory but as a good start. If we are to do anything to seriously address the policy and entitlement burdens our children and grandchildren are likely to inherit we must start today and must continue in the future with reforms and sensible reductions in spending. We are running a deficit of $319 billion. The deficit, while much lower than last year's, still represents our inability as policymakers to make tough decisions. Our failure to address the deficit, in this bill today and in the future, could have catastrophic consequences for this Nation. Every day we allow spending to grow, either through discretionary programs or through the unchecked growth of mandatory programs, increases our national debt. Today that debt stands at about $8 trillion, the debt held by the public accounting for $4.6 trillion. This is a drain on our economy, and it gets worse every day that we do nothing. I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good start. The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 strikes me as being the least we can do for future generations. In the coming weeks I hope we will continue this discussion. I hope we will take seriously the harm we can do by simply doing nothing. I thank Chairman Gregg and the members of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work on this legislation. The bill before us today represents a tremendous amount of work that began almost a year ago. As I mentioned at the start of my comment, this reconciliation deficit reduction legislation is a part of this year's budget plan, and I think it speaks to the power and importance of having a blueprint for our fiscal course. I look forward to working with the chairman and with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation represents the beginning of new, fiscally responsible, ongoing agenda to address our fiscal responsibilities. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to speak in opposition to the McCain amendment. Do I need to call up the amendment?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield?

Mr. ALLARD. There is a certain amount of time in opposition and in support of the amendment. I am not sure that we have it balanced.

Mr. ALLARD. How much time do we need for opposition statements? We have until 4:15 p.m. allocated for debate on this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I don't believe there is anybody left to speak on the McCain amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Murray amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we are moving into an important part of our budget plan for the year. Ideally, for the Congress to operate, we need to reach an agreement between the House and the Senate. We did that this year. In the past years we have not been able to do it. It is called the budget. As a member of the Budget Committee, I was delighted to see that happen. We laid out spending parameters for all of the various agencies, and then we also laid out a plan as to how we were going to control spending. We are going to do more things to reduce the deficit. The Budget Committee is going to be meeting this afternoon to put together the final steps of what we call reconciliation. We look at what we can do to reduce spending. It is called the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act. The most important two words in that particular piece of legislation are ``deficit reduction.'' In the budget, we had laid out a plan to reduce the deficit by $34.7 billion. That is net now, and so we need to keep that process moving. This is going to move us into an important aspect of our debate next week where we are going to begin debating on the floor of the Senate the Deficit Reduction Act. It is important we work hard to reduce the deficit. Why is it important? Because we do not want to be passing on today's obligations to future generations and robbing their futures because of the spending. If we look at what has been happening with deficit spending in recent years, it has been growing, and I think it concerns a lot of Members of the Senate. It is easy to express concerns, but it is difficult sometimes to get the votes we need in order to hold down deficit spending. So the Members of the Senate are going to have an opportunity to see how committed they are to reducing the deficit. This only applies to spending as was outlined in the budget resolution that we passed earlier this year. There is another aspect to spending, emergency spending. I happen to believe we need to work harder to find offsets on emergency spending. We have ignored that aspect. Everybody wants to push for emergency spending because it gets them around the budget rules, and they do not have to worry about the spending in their programs that perhaps they could not get adopted as part of the appropriations or the budget or both. We are going to be moving into a critical time next week. I think it is important that Members of the Senate remember we have a commitment to future generations. We may have to cast some tough votes next week to keep our plan going on reducing the deficit by $34.7 billion. I happen to think it may come out a little better than that. I guess I am an eternal optimist. But it is very important. It is a start. It is not as much as we should be doing, but it is a start. It addresses some mandatory spending programs, which seem to be the toughest for Members around here to address, and it addresses some discretionary spending. If we look out into the future, the greatest obligations that are affecting our budget are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is difficult to make decisions to reduce those programs. It is easier to go to discretionary spending, but that is not where we are seeing the real growth in spending. We are going to have to make more difficult decisions beyond next week. Next week is going to be a test on just how determined we are and how committed we are to reducing deficit spending. What the President has done in stimulating our economy with some tax reductions has proved fruitful. This year, we are seeing the results of those tax cuts with close to $100 million in revenue that was unanticipated at the first of the year, which obviously could have gone to deficit spending, but the emergency spending and what has happened with Hurricane Katrina and all the emergencies that have occurred in September has created a problem in being able to reduce the deficit as much as some of us had hoped. Hopefully, we can hold this small amount of deficit spending that we are going to be bringing to the floor next week. It is important that we do. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me and the other members of the Budget Committee when we report this bill out to hold it so at least we can reduce the deficit by $34.7 billion. It is important to the future of this country that we at least take this first step. It is something we need to work hard on if we expect a prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. My children are now grown and have good salaries. My grandchildren are now going to school. I want to see them have the same opportunities to grow and save their money and not have to face high tax rates because we exceeded spending in our generation. It is a challenge. It is a challenge, though, that we must meet. It is a challenge that we cannot put off, and the sooner we address this challenge, the sooner we are going to reduce deficit spending. Mr. President, I think my time is about ready to expire.

Mr. ALLARD. I will use a little more of my time. This is really important. It is an important time. I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for working hard to try and hold down our deficits. I know he was very frustrated when the budget resolution was before the Senate earlier this year. I know he had some real hope of holding down spending even more than what finally ended up in the budget bill. I have supported him in trying to hold down the deficit. We do that by holding down spending. I know he seems somewhat frustrated now because he has not been able to do as much as he wanted to do to eliminate the deficit. I think it is important that we stand behind the Budget Committee members, that we stand behind the chairman of the Budget Committee in trying to reduce the deficit. Spending should not be running on automatic pilot. To keep this economy growing and keep it strong, we are just going to have to make some tough decisions. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our chairman next week in a first step towards reducing the deficit. I yield the floor.