Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act of 2001. For decades, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), has successfully offered health insurance providers two contracts to choose from: a Medicare risk contract, (Medicare+Choice), and Medicare cost contract. In an effort to expand and refine the Medicare+Choice program, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent this termination, in 1999 Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004. I am pleased that Congress passed into law this two-year extension of Medicare cost contracting. This extension will help Medicare beneficiaries in rural communities in the United States keep the quality health care they currently receive under their cost contract plans. Congress should work to extend further Medicare cost contracts. The Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act of 2001 would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014. Currently 298,683 Americans, and 18,050 Coloradans receive health care through Medicare cost contracts. Of the 18,050 Coloradans with cost contract plans, 16,075 (89 percent) of them live in rural Colorado, where few Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, essentially two health care options for Medicare beneficiaries would remain: traditional Medicare fee-for-service, which can include Medigap, and Medicare+Choice. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, as scheduled in 2004, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs. Basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers, however, are few in rural Colorado, where health care demands are great. In addition to the fact that 89 percent of Colorado's seniors with cost contract plans live in rural areas, 6,358, 35 percent, of Colorado Medicare managed care beneficiaries live in counties in which Medicare+Choice is not even available. Further, cost contract plans are more widely used across the State than are Medicare+Choice plans: Medicare+Choice is the Medicare option of beneficiaries in only 20 of Colorado's 64 counties, while Medicare cost contracts are enjoyed by seniors in 46 counties in Colorado. In addition to accessibility, basic Medicare has fewer benefits than cost contract plans, and Medigap has higher out-of-pocket expenses than cost contract plans. Cost contract plans often provide more benefits than Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits, and Medicare Part B deductible coverage. In addition, some cost contract plans offer one rate for older Medicare beneficiaries, while Medigap plans charge higher premiums for beneficiaries who are older. Further, beneficiaries under Medicare cost contracts value the services cost contracting companies offer. According to a 1999 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, CAHPS, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract insurers provide the quality service seniors want and the health benefits they need. While the goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not accomplished this goal in rural America. One of the objectives of President Bush and Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is to increase in the near future Medicare+Choice enrollment. I support and have confidence in this effort. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional ten years. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 298,683 U.S. and 18,050 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I urge my colleagues to extend Medicare cost contract plans for ten years.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act of 2001. For decades, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), has successfully offered health insurance providers two contracts to choose from: a Medicare risk contract, (Medicare+Choice), and Medicare cost contract. In an effort to expand and refine the Medicare+Choice program, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent this termination, in 1999 Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004. I am pleased that Congress passed into law this two-year extension of Medicare cost contracting. This extension will help Medicare beneficiaries in rural communities in the United States keep the quality health care they currently receive under their cost contract plans. Congress should work to extend further Medicare cost contracts. The Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act of 2001 would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014. Currently 298,683 Americans, and 18,050 Coloradans receive health care through Medicare cost contracts. Of the 18,050 Coloradans with cost contract plans, 16,075 (89 percent) of them live in rural Colorado, where few Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, essentially two health care options for Medicare beneficiaries would remain: traditional Medicare fee-for-service, which can include Medigap, and Medicare+Choice. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, as scheduled in 2004, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs. Basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers, however, are few in rural Colorado, where health care demands are great. In addition to the fact that 89 percent of Colorado's seniors with cost contract plans live in rural areas, 6,358, 35 percent, of Colorado Medicare managed care beneficiaries live in counties in which Medicare+Choice is not even available. Further, cost contract plans are more widely used across the State than are Medicare+Choice plans: Medicare+Choice is the Medicare option of beneficiaries in only 20 of Colorado's 64 counties, while Medicare cost contracts are enjoyed by seniors in 46 counties in Colorado. In addition to accessibility, basic Medicare has fewer benefits than cost contract plans, and Medigap has higher out-of-pocket expenses than cost contract plans. Cost contract plans often provide more benefits than Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits, and Medicare Part B deductible coverage. In addition, some cost contract plans offer one rate for older Medicare beneficiaries, while Medigap plans charge higher premiums for beneficiaries who are older. Further, beneficiaries under Medicare cost contracts value the services cost contracting companies offer. According to a 1999 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, CAHPS, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract insurers provide the quality service seniors want and the health benefits they need. While the goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not accomplished this goal in rural America. One of the objectives of President Bush and Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is to increase in the near future Medicare+Choice enrollment. I support and have confidence in this effort. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional ten years. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 298,683 U.S. and 18,050 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I urge my colleagues to extend Medicare cost contract plans for ten years.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, for his work on behalf of the consortium and state my support for the allocation of funding for the consortium in the energy and water development appropriations bill in conference. The consortium, of which the university of Colorado is a member, has an astounding record of obtaining private sector matching support for its research activities and has done an amazing job of commercializing its research product. For every dollar invested in the consortium, $2.20 worth of research has been conducted with private sector matching funds--an impressive 120 percent private sector match. Additionally, the consortium has managed to commercialize its research within an average of three years, compared to an industry average of about 10 years. Again, I would like to state my support for funding for this unique and efficient national research institution.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I commend him for his efforts to promote the advancement and progress of renewable energy sources that will help to address our energy challenges. He has been a leader of these efforts, which are bearing real fruit. This bill actually increases renewable energy research, development and deployment programs for fiscal year 2002 by $60 million over last year. These increases will help speed the deployment of these cutting- edge technologies. But because the House had not fully funded certain solar R&D programs, the committee put its emphasis for solar programs on those programs that had not fared as well in the other Chamber. These programs, the Concentrating Solar Power program, and the Solar Buildings program with its innovative Zero Energy Buildings initiative, are now on solid footing. But the photovoltaics program, the program that has led to dramatic advances in those solar electric panels that we see popping up on the roofs of homes and businesses across the country--this program was not fully funded by the Committee. Much of this funding goes to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado. I understand the committee hopes to accept the House number for PV programs in conference, and I just want to give the Senator from Nevada an opportunity to speak to this issue.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank my good friend, Senator Hollings, for allowing me to speak on matter and for compromising on his amendment regarding plutonium disposition. As the Senator knows, I was opposed to his original amendment and glad to see that a compromise has been reached regarding this very important issue of fissile materials disposition. The Senator's original amendment would have prohibited any funding for the transportation of surplus U.S. plutonium to the Savannah River Site until a final agreement was concluded for primary and secondary disposition activities. All members with a DOE site located in their State understand how sensitive these issues are to our constituents. But we also understand the importance of the nationwide integration of sites to ensure that DOE can continue to meet all its needs and requirements. Representing Colorado and Rocky Flats, I was concerned that this amendment could have delayed the shipment of plutonium to SRS by at least 1 year, delaying the scheduled 2006 closure date, costing at least $300 million a year. As the ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, I was concerned that this amendment could have interrupted the delicate balance of integration between all the sites by delaying shipments from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Hanford, the Mound Site in Ohio to SRS, possibly triggering a chain reaction by other sites to deny SRS waste. However, I definitely understand South Carolina's concerns regarding the ability of SRS to properly dispose of DOE surplus plutonium. To my colleagues from South Carolina, I strongly support the establishment of a Mixed Oxide Fuel facility at SRS and will do all I can to assist in establishing some form of backup capability at the site as well. As one member who is sensitive to these concerns, I pledge to work with my South Carolina colleagues on this very important issue, not only for South Carolina, but also for the sake of the entire DOE complex. I admire Senator Hollings' persistence on this matter and for working with all of us who had concerns. I pledge to work not only with all members who have a DOE site to ensure a smooth and workable integration of sites regarding the treatment and disposal of waste. As chairman and ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed and I will have an opportunity to address the plutonium disposition program as part of the FY02 National Defense Authorization Bill. I again thank the Senator for this opportunity to express my concerns and gratitude.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I say to the majority I would like to be able to wrap up on my amendment, if I might.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 821.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment provides another opportunity for the Senate to protect the country's employees of small businesses. Yesterday, the Senate voted on an amendment I offered that would have protected employees of small businesses from losing their health care insurance. I am offering another amendment that gives Members another chance to protect those employees. My amendment, cosponsored by 12 Senators, protects employees of small businesses from losing their health insurance. My amendment exempts employers with 15 or fewer employees from unnecessary and unwarranted lawsuit. We must protect small business employees from losing their health care insurance. Small business represents over 99 percent of all employers in America. If the Kennedy bill passes in its current form, small business employees will be subject to increased health care premiums and to the possibilities of losing their health care insurance altogether. Based on studies from the Congressional Budget Office and the Lewin Group, the Kennedy bill will cause more than 1 million Americans to lose their health insurance. The White House estimates--and that is rather conservative, I believe, because the White House estimated even more Americans will lose their health care insurance--the Kennedy bill could cause 4 to 6 million Americans to lose their health care. The least the Senate can do to protect small business employees from losing their health insurance and protect small employers from unnecessary liability is to pass this amendment. We are talking about employers that have 15 to 2 employees. Currently, numerous Federal laws provide exemption for small businesses and their employees. In my previous amendment we talked about the 50 employee exemptions. The other side made the point it was unfair because we were creating a bright line and those with 49 employees would not have an opportunity to take advantage of benefits provided in the amendment as those with, say, 51 employees. This amendment draws a bright line. We are addressing the very small employers of the small business sector; that is, 15 employees or fewer. True, we have a bright line, but it is not unusual in Federal law to draw bright lines trying to differentiate where the respective law should deal with different sizes of employees, trying to draw a line between small employers and the larger employers. Let me cite for Members some examples. The Occupational Safety and Health Act exempts businesses of 10 or fewer employees, workers, in certain low-hazard industries. The Americans with Disabilities Act defines the term ``employer'' as a person who has 15 or more employees engaged in an industry affecting commerce. This is the area where we have decided in this amendment to differentiate the very small employers from the other small businesses of this country. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Modification Act, commonly referred to as the Plant Closing Act, defines the term ``employer'' as any business that employs 100 or more employees. The Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires employers to grant leave to parents to care for a newborn or seriously ill child, exempts businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which established the minimum wage standards, exempts certain employers with minimum gross income--they did not use the number of employees--of less than $500,000 as an indication of what a small employer might be as it applies to that statute. The Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act, which contains minimum wage and overtime for federally contracted employers, exempts employers that have Federal contracts for materials exceeding $10,000, which also is indicative of a small employer. The Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 exempts employers of 19 or fewer workers. These numerous employee protections are currently in place as Federal law. The Senate should extend similar protections to employees of small business. If we do not protect employees from frivolous lawsuits, more than a million--some estimate up to 9 million employees--will lose their health care insurance. Again, I am offering this amendment to provide the Senate with another chance to protect employees of small business from losing their health care insurance. I inquire the time remaining on my side?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. If you have finished, I will wrap up and then yield the time.

Mr. ALLARD. Don't get too provocative? Maybe the Senator from Massachusetts would like to respond?

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have had the experience of starting a business from scratch and having to meet a payroll. As far as I am concerned, too few Members of the Senate have ever had the opportunity to be in business for themselves and had to meet the challenges of meeting a payroll. But I personally know how legislation such as this can affect your business. I have had to face those tough decisions. They are not pleasant. There are a lot of small business employers all over this country that are sending letters to Members of this Senate about the very same concerns that have been expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from New Hampshire, and numerous other Senators, at least on this side of the aisle, about the impact of this particular piece of legislation on small business. Let me take one example. There is a Mr. Terry Toler, for example, of Greeley, CO. I represent the State of Colorado. He runs a small construction business. He employs three workers. The health insurance he provides to his employees also helps take care of the needs of his family. Terry cannot afford the costs that would come with the Kennedy bill in its current form. Last year, Terry's company had a 65-percent increase in health insurance premiums and costs. This increase was on top of Terry's other insurance costs, including equipment insurance, professional liability insurance, and general liability insurance. If this bill is passed in its current form, the company's health insurance rates will increase even further. As a result, he may have to drop the health insurance he provides for his employees and his family. My amendment will protect Terry and his employees from losing their health insurance. Terry is one of hundreds of small employers in Colorado that would be forced to jeopardize their health care insurance. We need to protect hard-working employees from losing their health insurance. Let me share some further concerns of this small businessman. Large employers can obtain health insurance at a much lower rate. As a result, small business employers cannot compete with larger companies. In a tight labor market, employers compete for the best employees. These are all competitive issues about which a small businessman is concerned. When this kind of legislation moves forward, you can understand their concerns. I have heard comments from another small businessman in Springfield, CO, who has expressed his concern. He writes: Health care costs are already prohibitive. Adding the law- given right to sue for punitive damages can only increase costs. A patient bill of rights is important, but not at the price of Kennedy's bill. He further states: . . . liability limits are a good way to help cap rising health care costs. As an employer, he must evaluate the price tag that comes with paying for health care. He believes it is prohibitive. According to a recent survey of some 600 national employers, 46 percent of employers would likely drop health care coverage for their workers if they were exposed to new health care lawsuits. This is not a good bill for small business. The adoption of the Allard amendment would make it better. So I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to join me in protecting employees of small business, thus protecting the employees' health care they currently enjoy. If the Kennedy bill passes in its current form, the health care protection of more than 1 million Americans will be jeopardized. Colleagues should support this amendment to protect employees' health insurance and limit small employer liability. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I am continuing to hear from small business employers. And other Members of this Senate, as well, are hearing the same message I am. They are concerned about the rising cost of health care and the impact it will have on their business and the impact this particular piece of legislation is going to have on costs. They are also concerned about the increased number of lawsuits that will be faced by small business employers if this particular piece of legislation passes. My amendment provides some relief for small businesses of 15 employees or fewer. When you first glance at this bill, as I did, you say: It looks as if the employer has been exempted. But when you read the fine print, then you see there is a circle around it, and you find that the small businessman gets pulled in and becomes subject to lawsuits, more lawsuits than he is facing now. That puts at jeopardy the health care he is currently providing for his employees. I am asking the Members of the Senate to join me to make sure small business doesn't get pulled into this ever-expanding web of tangled lawsuits into which they are going to be pulled if this particular bill passes. The Allard amendment is a good amendment. I hope Members of the Senate will join me in protecting small business, those of 15 employees or fewer. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial run in the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if I might, I would like to give a brief explanation of what this amendment is all about. The Allard amendment says that if you are a small businessman--you have between 2 and 15 employees--you are exempt from the provisions of this bill. That means you do not have to face the increased burdens of having to face lawsuits. And it means you will not have to face the increased burdens of higher premium costs on your insurance. So it is a very straightforward amendment. It is an amendment that is strongly supported by the small business community. Probably most of you have been getting calls into your offices from small businesspeople concerned about how this is going to impact their small business. So it is an important small business vote. I ask for a ``nay'' vote on the motion to table.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fulfill the wishes of my fellow Coloradans to allow the State to protect 300,000 acres of State land as open space. The origins of this issue date back to 1875 when Congress passed the legislation which authorized the Territory of Colorado to form a constitution, State government and be admitted into the Union. The 1875 Enabling Act established that Sections 16 and 36 of each township in the new State would be ``granted to said State for the support of common schools.'' The Federal directive to the State was clear: provide a sound financial basis for the long-term benefit of public schools. The Colorado State Constitution further strengthened this position and required that the new State Board of Land Commissioners manage its land holdings ``in such a matter as will secure the maximum possible amount'' for the public school fund. Today, there are some three million surface acres of State trust lands which are leased for ranching, farming, oil and gas production and other uses. Some of these lands are the most beautiful parcels in the state and offer a tremendous natural resource. Through the years, the lands have been a reliable, but a dwindling source of funds to the overall education budget. Currently, the State of Colorado spends approximately $3.5 billion annually on public schools, of this amount revenues from State trust lands account for about $22 million. Now, however, Coloradans priorities have changed, including a strong desire to protect open space and the environment. These changes became evident in a 1996 voter approved State Constitutional Amendment which gave more flexibility in the management of the trust lands. Among other things, the Amendment established a 300,000 acre Stewardship Trust. The voters recognized that certain State trust lands may be more valuable in the future if they are kept in the trust land portfolio rather than disposed of for a short term financial gains. The lands in the new Stewardship Trust will be managed ``to maximize options for continued stewardship, public use or future disposition'' by protecting and enhancing the ``beauty, natural values, open space and wildlife habitat'' on these parcels. Further, it struck the provision requiring ``maximizing revenue'' and replaced it with a requirement that the land board to manage its land holdings ``in order to produce reasonable and consistent income over time.'' While the Amendment has withstood court challenges, it still remains that the Stewardship Trust could, in the future, cause a breach of the Enabling Act. In order to correct this potential breach, I am introducing this legislation with the full support of the State of Colorado to ensure that the wishes of the voters are upheld and the Stewardship Trust is fully implemented. There are two key points of the legislation. First, the bill allows 300,000 acres of state trust lands to be used for open space, wildlife habitat, scenic value or other natural value. Second, it exempts these lands from the requirement that they generate income for the common schools. The Colorado State Land Board has a clear mission for implementing the Stewardship Trust: to protect the crown jewels of the state trust lands and ensure that these lands receive special protection from sale or development. It is also clear that Colorado voters wanted to set aside 300,000 acres from potential development. I want to help the State fulfill these goals. This is a unique bill and ensures the state's flexibility in managing the trust lands. It does not change the intent of the Stewardship Trust, just ensures that the Enabling Act and the State Constitution are consistent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fulfill the wishes of my fellow Coloradans to allow the State to protect 300,000 acres of State land as open space. The origins of this issue date back to 1875 when Congress passed the legislation which authorized the Territory of Colorado to form a constitution, State government and be admitted into the Union. The 1875 Enabling Act established that Sections 16 and 36 of each township in the new State would be ``granted to said State for the support of common schools.'' The Federal directive to the State was clear: provide a sound financial basis for the long-term benefit of public schools. The Colorado State Constitution further strengthened this position and required that the new State Board of Land Commissioners manage its land holdings ``in such a matter as will secure the maximum possible amount'' for the public school fund. Today, there are some three million surface acres of State trust lands which are leased for ranching, farming, oil and gas production and other uses. Some of these lands are the most beautiful parcels in the state and offer a tremendous natural resource. Through the years, the lands have been a reliable, but a dwindling source of funds to the overall education budget. Currently, the State of Colorado spends approximately $3.5 billion annually on public schools, of this amount revenues from State trust lands account for about $22 million. Now, however, Coloradans priorities have changed, including a strong desire to protect open space and the environment. These changes became evident in a 1996 voter approved State Constitutional Amendment which gave more flexibility in the management of the trust lands. Among other things, the Amendment established a 300,000 acre Stewardship Trust. The voters recognized that certain State trust lands may be more valuable in the future if they are kept in the trust land portfolio rather than disposed of for a short term financial gains. The lands in the new Stewardship Trust will be managed ``to maximize options for continued stewardship, public use or future disposition'' by protecting and enhancing the ``beauty, natural values, open space and wildlife habitat'' on these parcels. Further, it struck the provision requiring ``maximizing revenue'' and replaced it with a requirement that the land board to manage its land holdings ``in order to produce reasonable and consistent income over time.'' While the Amendment has withstood court challenges, it still remains that the Stewardship Trust could, in the future, cause a breach of the Enabling Act. In order to correct this potential breach, I am introducing this legislation with the full support of the State of Colorado to ensure that the wishes of the voters are upheld and the Stewardship Trust is fully implemented. There are two key points of the legislation. First, the bill allows 300,000 acres of state trust lands to be used for open space, wildlife habitat, scenic value or other natural value. Second, it exempts these lands from the requirement that they generate income for the common schools. The Colorado State Land Board has a clear mission for implementing the Stewardship Trust: to protect the crown jewels of the state trust lands and ensure that these lands receive special protection from sale or development. It is also clear that Colorado voters wanted to set aside 300,000 acres from potential development. I want to help the State fulfill these goals. This is a unique bill and ensures the state's flexibility in managing the trust lands. It does not change the intent of the Stewardship Trust, just ensures that the Enabling Act and the State Constitution are consistent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. How much time remains?

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ALLARD. My understanding is we have an hour for the Allard amendment equally divided between both sides; is that correct?