Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about what the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done this year. This Ryan White reauthorization is extremely important, but it is not the only bill we have been working on. Because of the way we have done our work, some people may not be aware of what has been done. In fact, I know that to be the case. This is a committee that has worked across the aisle. When you work across the aisle, a lot of times you can work out many of the difficulties, and when you work out the difficulties, there is not a big floor debate. And when there is not a big floor debate, there is nothing for the media to write up about the blood; consequently, it does not get coverage. So I want to correct that here today, and I would like to discuss the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's accomplishments for the 109th Congress. We have heard some claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. Well, I am here to assure American workers, retirees, students, and parents that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done a great deal to help you live more secure, productive, and healthy lives. Of course, we have more to do, but I am proud that during a time of intense partisanship on Capitol Hill, the HELP Committee has produced a lengthy list of legislative accomplishments. Looking back over the past 2 years, most of these victories materialized when Senators were willing to work across party lines and across the Capitol to put finding a solution in front of exploiting an issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of bills and reports filed by the HELP Committee in the 109th Congress be printed in the Record

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. Just last week, we made a unanimous consent request to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. That means Members from both sides of the aisle and both ends of the building have agreed to the language in this reauthorization. It passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce last week. However, Senators from three States are blocking the vote that would speed reauthorization programs that provide life-sparing treatment to individuals suffering from HIV and AIDS. We have to pass this bill. If this bill is not reauthorized by September 30, several States and the District of Columbia will be slated to lose funds. People who have been counting on the money for HIV and AIDS will lose money on September 30. Therefore, Senators from three States are holding up a bill that would help Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Washington State, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, not to mention some of the towns, major cities, and some of the States that would be gaining revenue as we move the money to areas where the current AIDS and HIV cases are. People with HIV and AIDS who live in the States I just mentioned will be hurt if a few Senators continue blocking this reauthorization. As we all know, the Ryan White program provides critical health services for people infected with HIV and AIDS. These individuals rely on vital programs for drugs and other services. We need to pass this legislation so we can provide them with the treatment they desperately need. I urge Senators who are holding up this bill to stop playing the ``numbers game'' so that the Ryan White legislation can address the epidemic of today--not yesterday. I mentioned that we changed the formula to follow the people. The HIV/AIDS epidemic affects more women, minorities, and more people in rural areas and the South than ever before. While we have made significant progress in understanding and treating this disease, there is still much to do to ensure equitable treatment for all Americans infected with HIV and AIDS. We must ensure that those infected with HIV and living with AIDS will receive our support and our compassion, regardless of their race, regardless of their agenda, regardless of where they live; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this key legislation and to stop playing the numbers game so we can assist those with HIV in America. Unanimous-Consent Request S. 2823 Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2823, the Ryan White Act. I ask unanimous consent that the Enzi substitute at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment No. 578, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I am sorry to hear we have an objection. We need to find a way to work through this objection. I have been working desperately across the aisle with Senator Kennedy, who has been joining me in this effort to help get it out of committee. We have been trying to find a way that the formula would work. One of the ways was to include in the bill 3 years of hold harmless for them to finish updating their system to the point where if they truly have the HIV numbers, they will truly get the money. If they don't have the HIV numbers, yes, they will lose the money. Now, I don't know if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that our Ryan White reauthorization bill increases the funding for Minneapolis by $2 million and $2.5 million for the whole State. It is a net benefactor. There have been increases in HIV and AIDS cases in Minnesota, and this would move money to where the cases are. That is where the numbers show that his city and State would be significant beneficiaries. I have a lot of statistics I can go through, but I wonder if the Senator is also aware that these increases are due to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS in the funding formula and that Minnesota has more HIV cases.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification. I will ask the Senator for his help. He said he would vote for the bill. Anything we can do to move this forward. We have put a 3-year hold harmless in there for everyone. On September 30, the world falls apart for a number of people. California, for one, will lose $18.5 million of their funding. There are a number of big losers. There are no big losers if we pass the bill, provided the numbers back up what they have. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. The increase in knowledge that I am sure he has created across the country--and also the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma--both of them have made an excellent case for why we need to do this. We need to do it immediately. We need to do it for people who have HIV/AIDS. I would note that the person who raised the objection to us adopting the bill is not from one of the three States that have a hold on the bill. I would hope those people would take a look at the situation in their State, and take a look at the fact they are getting more than the average number of funds being expended on patients across the rest of the country, and see that the surpluses their States are running at the end of the year greatly exceed the rather minute loss they would have, and that they would agree for us to move forward on this bill and get it in place before that September 30 deadline that is going to be devastating to 13 States that will lose money for having done the right thing. Now, having said that, I know there will be people who will say the Republicans cannot get anything done. Well, that particular issue, and many others are not Republican issues. They are issues of the United States. And that is one on which we worked across the aisle and had a great deal of agreement on. And I have to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member on my committee, for the extreme work he did to help us find, among the thousands of formulas we looked at, the one that was the most fair so it would follow the patients. I do appreciate the work he has helped us do in the committee during the year. Accomplishments of the Help Committee

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to report some good news with regard to mine safety and to congratulate FMC Corporation's White Team for being the best mine rescue team in the Nation. As we all know, the mining community experienced a profound loss this year with the disasters at the Sago and Aracoma coal mines in West Virginia and at the Darby Mine in Kentucky. The tragic loss of life in these accidents served to reaffirm the commitment of all those involved in the industry to ensuring and improving the safety and welfare of our Nation's miners. Essential to that effort, and emblematic of our commitment, was the passage of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response, MINER, Act of 2006. The MINER Act passed this body unanimously. It was then signed into law by President Bush and implemented by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA. As the primary sponsor of the MINER Act, I am confident that this new law will improve the safety of our underground mines and reduce the likelihood of similar tragic accidents in the future. In the careful and deliberate process of developing the MINER Act, the views of all stakeholders were solicited and carefully considered. Although in many areas there were differences of opinion, all those involved in the issue of mine safety were in agreement on the critical role played by mine rescue teams and universal in their praise of the dedicated individuals who serve on them. Rescue teams represent the very finest traditions of the mining community. Composed of volunteers, highly trained and experienced, these teams stand ready to come to the aid of their fellow miners in the most critical and dangerous of situations. The MINER Act explicitly recognizes the essential role of mine rescue teams and the importance of their training and support. Part of the training and the tradition of mine rescue teams is their participation in competitions that pit the teams against each another. Each year MSHA holds a national mine rescue competition that draws teams from throughout the United States. This year, the metal, nonmetal mine competition was held in Reno, NV. I am particularly pleased to report four teams from southwestern Wyoming placed in the top six spots in a field of 34 teams from across the Nation. The FMC Corporation White Team, which was led by Leroy Hutchinson, won the competition. The White Team was followed by the FMC Red Team, led by Bob Knot. OCI Chemical's Blue Team, which was led by Gary Ruiz, placed fifth, and Solvay's Silver Team, which was led by Shawn Marshall, placed sixth. These teams represent the best of southwest Wyoming's soda ash industry. The four companies that mine the mineral Trona in Wyoming account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of soda ash. Soda ash is a commodity required for the production of glass. It is also a very important export that accounts for $500 million of our balance of trade. I am very proud of this year's showing by our Wyoming soda ash industry in this competition. It is important to remember that although this is a competition, it is not a sport. The National Mine Safety Rescue Contest and other mine safety rescue contests are training events. They help prepare mine rescue teams so they are ready to act if they are ever called to deal with a situation that we hope will never occur. When accidents happen, miners count on volunteer mine rescue teams to save them. Those mine rescue teams need to have the best resources available to them and the training they will need to be prepared for anything that may happen as they take on that important job. Mine rescue competitions play an important role in that effort by providing mine rescue teams with the kind of experience they will need if they are to perform at the highest level of efficiency in the event there is an emergency. They offer a chance for teams to improve their communication skills, to consider previously unforeseen problems, and to get feedback on their performance from contest judges. Although these teams compete against each other in mine rescue contests, when a real world situation arises, they operate as one cohesive unit to affect a rescue. Each company can draw on the good will and collective expertise of the mine rescue teams to help bring miners in danger to safety. In the spirit of brotherhood and cooperation, the teams know that if there is a mine emergency, they will have the support they will need to bring the victims of the accident and their fellow rescue workers out of the mine and home to their families and loved ones. In other words, while these companies compete in the marketplace and mine rescue teams compete in these contests, they will stand shoulder to shoulder should an accident occur at the mine. I would like to include the names of each of the participants of our teams in southwest Wyoming who competed in the national mine rescue competition. Although I particularly want to congratulate the FMC White Team, the FMC Red Team, OCI Chemical's Blue Team, and Solvay's Silver Team, I congratulate and thank all those who participated. Your efforts continue to make a difference by making our mines a safer place for all our Nation's miners to work. The information follows. FMC White Team: Leroy Hutchinson (Captain) (Benchman), Tony Herrera, Alan Jones (Gas), Robert Byers, Brad Roll, Bronson Berg, Vern Plantenberg, Mike Padilla (Team Trainer). FMC White First Aid: Robert Byers, Bronson Berg, Vern Plantenberg. FMC Red Team: Bob Knott (Captain), Mark Anderson, Rick Owens (Gas), Robert Pope, Bill Madura, Daniel Hellickson, Rod Knight (Benchman), Mike Padilla (Team Trainer), Dave Hutchinson (Team Trainer), Rick Steenberg (Official in Charge), Robert Pope, Mark Anderson, Bill Madura. FMC Red First Aid: Robert Pope, Mark Anderson, Bill Madura. General Chemical Blue: Jeff Downey (Captain), Doug Cox (Gas), Steve McKeehan, Mickey Smith, Willie Cederburg, Stan Owens, Terry Hansen, Leslie Wareham (Benchman), Keith Mullins (Team Trainer), David Graham (Official in Charge), Mickey Smith, Terry Hansen, Steve McKeehan. General Chemical Blue First Aid: Mickey Smith, Terry Hansen, Steve McKeehan. General Chemical Black: Alan Brewer (Captain), Byron Willingham, Lucas Coon (Gas), Curtiss Cooley, Jr., Steve Roberts, Tommy Graham, Ken Ball, Charles Beard (Benchman), John E. Sykes (Team Trainer), David Graham (Official in Charge), Steve McKeehan. General Chemical Black First Aid: Byron Willingham, Steve Roberts, Curtiss Cooley, Jr. OCI White Team: Jack J. Volsey II (Captain), Chuck Jones, Paul Larson (Gas), Ted Laughlin, Scott Counts, Kyle Butcher, Willy Moore (Benchman), Nathan Kendall, Matt Cummings (Team Trainer), Rick Terry (Team Trainer), Tim Musbach (Official in Charge). OCI White First Aid: Chuck Jones, Ted Laughlin, Nathan Kendall. OCI Blue Team: Gary Ruiz (Captain), Bill Mehle (Gas), Brent Skorcz, Blake Barney, Dennie Hughes (Benchman), Don O'Lexey, Richard Clark, Tyler Lovato, Rick Terry (Team Trainer), Matt Cummings (Team Trainer), Tim Musbach (Official in Charge). OCI Blue First Aid: Blake Barney, Don O'Lexey, Dennie Hughes. Solvay Silver Team: Shawn Marshall (Captain), Joe Thompson, Bob Clement, Scott Brown (Benchman), Gerald Maxfield (Gas), Brian Liscomb, Ryan Hansen, Dusty Martin, Jeff Tetmore (Team Trainer), John Angwin (Official in Charge). Solvay Silver First Aid Team: Shawn Marshall, Joe Thompson, Dusty Martin. Solvay Blue Team: Joe McDonald (Captain), Chad Rawlins (Gas), Kent Boman, Jamie McGillis, Jerry Huntington, Brian Quick, Jody Burgener, Dennis Hughes (Benchman), David Stevenson (Team Trainer), John Angwin (Official in Charge). Solvay Blue First Aid Team: Joe McDonald, Kent Boman, Jamie McGillis.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, every day when the Wyoming papers come out, my staff in Wyoming looks through them and makes sure that information that is in them reaches me here in Washington in a timely way so that action then can be taken or information can be received or questions can be answered or people's personal problems that have been caused by the Federal Government can be taken care of. Recently, there was a letter to the editor from a young man in our military. It appeared in the Torrington Telegram. It has a very important message for our country that I wanted to share with the country. These are the feelings of a young man serving in the military. I appreciate his effort in putting this letter in a Wyoming paper. I hope it makes several papers in Wyoming. I am going to make sure the people across America hear the message he is delivering to Americans. It is an important message for Americans, but apparently it is one on which the media is reluctant to report. So I am going to work to help him deliver the message. Here is his letter. It is from Lee Freeburg: I am a U.S. Navy Corpsman, having returned home for some relax time. I was reading through the Telegram and came across a letter to the editor titled ``Bush using fear tactics.'' I am appalled by the disrespect to the president of the great nation and the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president is doing his best to guide our country and keep us free. He is not the only one who makes decisions, (hence we are not a dictatorship.) Have we forgotten that we also have a House of Representatives and a Senate? This collection of Americans is Congress. For the president to send our troops, our sons (me) and daughters to war, it takes an act of Congress. Sailor Freeburg continues: I am proud to serve my country and my president, defending and bringing freedom to people all around the world. I am outraged by people's attitudes toward this war; have we so soon forgotten 9-11? They attacked us first on our soil. . . . Have you ever seen the look of gratitude in people's faces for the liberation from a dictatorship? Then you do not understand what we (the U.S. troops stationed abroad) are doing. We as Americans take our freedom so lightly and we need to stop and think. How did we come about to have these freedoms? Well, war. War earned our freedom, and war has kept it, from the American War for Independence to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Men have fallen, paid the ultimate price so that we as Americans can enjoy living without dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Sailor Freeburg goes on to write: While other countries are building fences to keep people in, we have to build fences to keep people out. Now if the president were a dictator, would people be trying to float 90 miles across rough water on a wooden door, drinking their own urine, just to set one foot on American soil? Where are the iron gates and armed guards? Where are the mass graves of innocent citizens, murdered for disloyalty to the dictator? There are none to be found on our soil. They do not exist. Why? Because we do not live under a dictator. Was President Lincoln a dictator? No, he even had to go to war with the south for freedoms we still enjoy today. In closing, if this was a war for oil, why haven't we just taken over the entire country of Iraq and added it as the 51st state? I am proud to say, I am a gun-carrying Republican, and honored to be a part of the greatest nation on earth. America, be thankful for the freedom we enjoy because freedom is never free. That is one of many letters that I receive wondering why more things are not said about the way the war is going in Iraq from the perspective of our troops who are over there, who are talking to the people who are affected by it. Our troops are affected by what they hear and read from over here. They get their local newspapers. They get letters, and they want their message out, too. This is a perspective from a young man serving in our military, one of many. A few years ago, one of the TV stations that goes into schools across this country did a show called ``Young Men Who Saved the World.'' It was about World War II. The reason they ran this show was because there were a lot of reunions happening among soldiers who had been a part of World War II, and they were all old guys. The people in the schools were getting the impression that the war had been fought by old guys. So this channel that goes into these schools did this special broadcast. What they did was go back and find the pictures of these men when they actually served in the military. They were young men. It made a distinct impression on the kids of this country that there were young people out there recognizing the value of freedom, the value of democracy, and willing to put their lives on the line to see that it was shared around the world. I thank you, Sailor Freeburg, for your letter and for the message that needs to be delivered to the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to announce to the Senate that we have a visiting Member of Lebanon's Parliament, Mr. Misbah Ahdab, if any Senators would like to come by and say hello.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Clinton amendment. Although I understand the need to ensure that first responders and volunteers with definitive health effects from 9/11 receive treatment, I remain very concerned with the current proposal from the Senator from New York. I must first say that I am sorry Senator Clinton did not speak with me first about this matter, as it falls within the HELP Committee jurisdiction, which I chair and of which Senator Clinton is a member. It also concerns me that the main genesis for action on this issue is a report released just last week from Mount Sinai, as part of the ongoing monitoring of health effects that we in Congress have authorized. Given that it has simply been a week since that report, we have not had a full amount of time to review that report and understand all of its implications. I am concerned with the Senator from New York's proposal to delegate CDC as the primary entity administering this program. Rather than rely on the current mechanisms for providing health care and treatment programs through the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services, this amendment creates a new role for CDC, taking them away from critical public health activities, such as responding to bird flu and potential bioterrorist attacks. It is also important to make sure a program such as this is designed in such a way to meet the needs of the first responders and emergency workers that need it most. The eligibility criteria are also too vague and provide health care services for activities that are not related to the events of September 11, 2001. I appreciate that Senator Clinton's staff have been clear with mine that this is an issue that she recognizes as flawed and she would like to address it. However, we do not have the time to do that right now. We should not as a responsible legislative body approve a flawed proposal. I do want to continue to work with the Senator from New York to address the health issues of the first responders who assisted in our response to 9/11. I know that time is limited in the remaining days of this Congress, and all of us would like all of our major priorities to be addressed. However, I have confirmed with HHS that they will soon send out another $75 million in addition to the $125 million which they have already distributed, to provide care and treatment to these individuals for the next few months. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a funding document from HHS be inserted into the Record that fully describes the funds that have been allocated to New York city to date. In closing, I want to restate my commitment to further investigating the health effects of 9/11 on first responders and working with HHS to ensure their health care needs are addressed. We do have time for thoughtful consideration and review of this issue, including giving HHS additional authorities through regular order.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 5 years ago we saw the face of evil cross our shores as a band of terrorists took control of four planes and used our own technology against us to kill thousands of our fellow citizens. Plotting in secrecy and under the cover of darkness, in caves in the remote hills of Afghanistan, these terrorists planned to kill as many Americans as they could, destroying some carefully selected buildings that, to them, symbolized our Nation and our unique way of life. We all remember that day with great clarity and we will never forget where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news--a plane had crashed into one of the Trade Towers in what appeared to be a tragic accident. Then, a second plane struck the other tower. It was then clear that this was no accident. We were under attack. In the moments that followed a nation looked on in horror as we saw the face of bravery and courage under fire as the men and women of New York's police and fire departments responded to the attack in New York. They battled long and hard, against the odds, to come to the aid of those who were trapped in the towers. Sadly, in the effort to save those who were in desperate trouble, many of those first responders were also trapped in the towers as they weakened, and ultimately collapsed. As we watched events continue to unfold in New York, we heard reports that another plane had hit the Pentagon and caused a considerable amount of damage to the building and claimed the lives of many of those who were working there. Then came the news that a fourth plane had crashed in a lonely field in Pennsylvania. Suddenly the attack took on massive proportions as we looked with fear and trepidation to the skies and wondered if there were more planes headed for additional targets throughout the country. In the days that followed, the story behind the events became clear. The attack was orchestrated by a terrorist group that was led by Osama bin Laden. Three planes had hit their targets. The passengers on the fourth, made aware of the fate of the other three planes by friends and loved ones on their cell phones, had launched their own attack on the hijackers and they were able to take control of the plane and stop the hijackers from using it to destroy another landmark and kill more Americans in a crowded city. The brave men and women on that flight had sacrificed their own lives so that others might be spared. Those are the bare details, a brief outline of some of what happened that day. It was a day that had a great impact on every American--and it hit us all on a deeply personal level. Ask anyone and you will see that we all have our own story, our own recollection of what happened on September 11 and what it meant to us. We aren't unique in that. The Trade Center was a global marketplace, so people from all over the world also have their own story to tell about that day, especially those who lost friends and loved ones in the attacks on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. When it is written, history will make it clear that September 11 was more than an American tragedy. It was the beginning of a global nightmare. It has now been 5 years since the day the towers fell and with the passage of time has come study after study, investigations, and other attempts to make some sense of everything that happened that day. There were failures of some systems to work at their peak efficiency, and there were warnings that, with hindsight, should have been handled differently. The important thing now is not to place blame and point fingers, but to ensure we are fully and adequately protected so we don't have to experience another September 11. As I prepared my remarks for this day, I thought about my young grandson, now 3 years old. He is a wonderful addition to my life and he continues to give me an added perspective to the events I see on the news every night. I know someday he will ask me about that day. When he does, I hope I am able to find the right words to explain to him about the courage and the bravery of all those who worked so hard to try to save the lives of those who were in danger that day. I hope I can help him understand the reasons why our brave service men and women are fighting on the front lines of the war on terror to keep him safe. It won't be easy for his is a world of peace and innocence and far removed from the hatred that drove the events of that day. Still, no matter what I tell him, I know he will ask me why these things happen. His grampa will tell him that this is a world full of so many good things--like his parents who love him so very dearly, and the things he loves to do, like go fishing with his grampa. Unfortunately, it is also a world where people preach anger and hatred and try to harm people they don't even know. If it is a hard lesson for us to learn, you can imagine how difficult it will be for a small child. How to talk to our children about September 11 was a problem when it happened, and it will continue to be so as we work to put an end to terrorism around the globe, wherever it exists. Ultimately, that will be the legacy of September 11. We were cruelly attacked on that day, by a group that underestimated our resolve as a nation and our will as individuals to right the great wrong that had been done to us. Today, 5 years later, we stand united, still strongly committed to putting an end to the threat of terrorism, wherever it appears. We didn't start this battle, but our Armed Forces will, once again, put an end to it. Five years ago the world stood still, and it was changed forever. The ripples begun on September 11 continue to have repercussions that draw us back to that day almost constantly. As we remember the events of that dark, sad day, we pause to remember all those who lost their lives, especially their families and their loved ones. Our thoughts and prayers are constantly with you. We remember the fireman, police and rescue squads who responded to the sites of the attacks and performed with great bravery. The concern they showed for others and the sacrifices they made to try to save anyone they could will never be forgotten. And, we remember our servicemen and women who stand guard around the world, defending our precious freedoms and our way of life. We owe them all a debt we will never be able to repay for the sacrifices they continue to make on our behalf. Today we rededicate ourselves to the work that must be done to make our Nation stronger, safer and more secure so that our world will be a better place for us all to live. It will be difficult and it will require us all to play a part in the effort to rid the world of the threat of terror. It will ultimately be the legacy we will leave to those who will follow us--a world in which everyone is able to live in peace and freedom and without fear.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of the YouthBuild Transfer Act, S. 3534, as amended. I am pleased at the widespread support that this bill has received and want to especially thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senators DeWine, Kerry and Murray. This bill transfers the Youth Build program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. YouthBuild was enacted in 1992. It provides programs for young adults aged 16 to 24 to build or rehabilitate housing for homeless or low-income individuals in their communities while they study to earn their high school diploma or GED. These youth gain occupational and technical skills while building their knowledge to help them become and remain productive participants in the workplace. By transferring YouthBuild to DOL, the program will be more closely aligned with and benefit from collaboration with the larger workforce system at the State and local levels. It will continue to serve those young adults most in need of these services, and enable them to serve their communities by building affordable housing, and assist them in transforming their own lives and roles in society. YouthBuild assists young adults not currently enrolled in school gain needed education, skills and knowledge. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining. I am hopeful that this bill will be signed into law quickly so that the YouthBuild program can continue to successfully help young adults across the country acquire the knowledge and skills they need in the 21st century global economy.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important bill, one that my colleague Senator Kennedy and I have been working on for some time. In 2005, the HELP Committee held two hearings on the issue of drug safety. We received over 50 recommendations from witnesses at those hearings. At that time, Senator Kennedy and I pledged to develop a comprehensive response to the drug safety issues raised. The Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act is the product of working across party lines, and creates a structured framework for resolving safety concerns. Under the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act, FDA would begin to approve drugs and biologics, and new indications for these products, with risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, REMS. The REMS is designed to be an integrated, flexible mechanism to acquire and adapt to new safety information about a drug. The sponsor and FDA will assess and review an approved REMS at least annually for the first 3 years, as well as in applications for a new indication, when the sponsor suggests changes, or when FDA requests a review based on new safety information. The development of tools to evaluate medical products has not kept pace with discoveries in basic science. New tools are needed to better predict safety and efficacy, which in turn would increase the speed and efficiency of applied biomedical research. The Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act would spur innovation by establishing a new public- private partnership at the FDA to advance the Critical Path Initiative and improve the sciences of developing, manufacturing, and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, devices, biologics and diagnostics. The Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act also establishes a central clearinghouse for information about clinical trials and their results to help patients, providers and researchers learn new information and make more informed health care decisions. Finally, the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act would make improvements to FDA's process for screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest. FDA relies on its 30 advisory committees to provide independent expert advice, lend credibility to the product review process, and inform consumers of trends in product development. The bill would clarify and streamline FDA's processes for evaluating candidates for service on an advisory committee, and address the key challenge of identifying a sufficient number of people with the necessary expertise and a minimum of potential conflicts of interest to serve on advisory committees. I want to thank the dozens of stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, patient and consumer groups, industry associations, individual companies, and scientific experts who have taken the time and effort to give us their comments and input on the bill. Their assistance has been invaluable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill is nearly identical to the product and agreements made by members of the conference committee in a bipartisan manner. I am proud that we have before us the most sweeping changes to our Nation's retirement laws since the enactment of ERISA itself. This legislation will provide greater security for our nation's workers who have retirement benefit plans and greater stability for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporations, PGBC. There is little doubt that this bill will be the foundation on which the future of our retirement system rests. Today, we secure the future for American workers and their families. We ensure their hard work is rewarded and their hard earned dollars go towards their retirement needs. I would like to review some important aspects of this legislation. For more than a year we have been working on a package of pension funding rules that will strengthen defined benefit plans and thus, protect plan participants from the fear of poverty in their retirement years. When I have concluded that, I will speak about the process surrounding the pension reform bill. We were motivated to make these changes for several reasons. First, plans were underfunded. This occurred due to numerous and complicated reasons. A key factor was the combination of low interest rates and lowered equity values that began in the year 2000. The intersection of these two economic events caused both defined benefit plans and the federal agency that insures them, the PBGC to show big deficits. More money needed to go into the plans regardless of fluctuations in the economy. Underfunding was not caused solely by a drop in interest rates and equity values. It was also caused by loopholes in pension funding rules. Second, as plan deficits rose, required contributions to plans skyrocketed. This put struggling companies in financial peril. When the terrorist attacks occurred on 9/11 the cash flow of many of those same companies froze up. Without big reserves in the plans, they could not make their pension payments any longer. Some of them just declared bankruptcy. In turn, they dumped their pensions on the PBGC. Those pension plan failures were quite large. Among them were some steel companies and a couple of big airlines. PBGC premiums and asset recoveries from failed pension plans are not enough to cover the cost of paying benefits to participants of the failed plans. Every time there has been a pension plan failure, the PBGC's deficit worsens. Finally, a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC is not an option. Congress' adverse experience with the savings and loan problems of the past taught us a lesson: A taxpayer bailout of the PBGC is not an option. A taxpayer bailout of the pension insurance agency could only occur if the Congress provided for it. We did not provide for a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC in this bill. Instead, we corrected the pension funding rules. There have been murmurings in the media and on Capitol Hill that the bills produced in the House and Senate were somehow ``weaker than current law''. The facts plainly show that neither the House nor the Senate bill is weaker than current law and this new bill that the House introduced and passed on Friday July 28, 2006 is not weaker than current law either. Here are just a few examples of how the pension reform proposal is tougher than current law. Under the reform proposal: plans must be funded to 100 percent; plans must amortize their debts over 7 years; plans must use updated and accurate mortality tables; plans may not add inflated credit balances to deflated plan assets; liabilities must be valued using a modified yield curve that will better ``duration match'' assets and liabilities of the plans; smoothing for both assets and liabilities may be only 24 months in duration; plans that are seriously underfunded must pay an additional contribution for ``at-risk'' plans. If plans are at-risk for a long enough period of time, they will be subject to an additional requirement to pay a ``load factor'' into the plan which assumes the plan may be at risk of terminating; benefit increases, lump sum payouts and additional accruals are prohibited for certain seriously underfunded plans; payment of shutdown benefits are severely restricted for plans that are underfunded; funding of executive compensation is prohibited when the plan covering rank-and-file workers is underfunded; and premiums payable for pension insurance are dramatically increased and will add billions of dollars to the coffers of the PBGC. By contrast, under current law a pension need be funded only to 90 percent; liabilities are valued upon the four-year weighted average of a long-term corporate bond and assets are smoothed over as many as five year; a single accelerated payment is required for underfunded plans, but there is no load factor; credit balances are added to assets and can result in inappropriate contribution holidays and there are many other weaknesses in current law that have been corrected in the reform legislation. One industry that made a compelling case for special transition rules is the airline industry. Because airlines are vital to our economy, Congress agreed that different rules should apply to the plans of the legacy airlines. I am a little disappointed in the language from the House bill because it fails to treat all the legacy airlines equally. I admire the courage of a plan sponsor that makes the tough decision to freeze its plan. When a company is suffering from financial distress or the risk of it, it needs to freeze accruals. But if the company has made other financial sacrifices or the employees have made other concessions in order to keep the plan in place that should, (within limits), be a decision of the company. The Senate bill gave amortization extensions to all four legacy airlines but required the non-frozen plans to pay into their benefit plans at the ``at-risk'' rate. The frozen plans received a more favorable arrangement--but all the legacy airlines received some more or less equivalent treatment. Under the House bill, frozen plans receive 17 years to amortize their plan debt and an interest rate of 8.85 percent. The frozen plans would be prohibited from having a follow-on DB plan or a DC plan in which they pay matching contributions. If their plan should terminate within the next 10 years, for any reason other than a terrorist attack, or other similar event, severe termination premiums are to be imposed on the sponsoring company. This language controverts the provisions of the recently enacted reconciliation act, P.L. 109-171, that did not impose a termination premium on plans whose sponsor declared bankruptcy prior to October 18, 2005. By contrast, nonfrozen plans receive some limited leeway. They would obtain an amortization of ten rather than seven years for the liabilities accrued to date under their plan. They would not have to pay the deficit reduction contribution, DRC, for 2006 or 2007. That waiver of the DRC would be a big help to their finances until the new rules phase in. I prefer the language of the Senate passed bill, S. 1783. I am very sorry that the House did not see fit to accept the Senate language, as it was the result of many and long negotiations. The Nation cannot afford any more airline bankruptcies or terminations of airline pension plans. I hope this legislation will not worsen the finances of the legacy airlines or the pension plans they sponsor. The language we have before us makes other changes to law as well. For example, it provides clarification regarding the use of automatic enrollment programs for defined contribution plans. It establishes a new portable defined benefit plan that we refer to as the ``DB(k)'' plan. This retirement savings vehicle is especially appealing to small and medium sized companies. The legislation improves portability of retirement savings. It contains many beneficial changes to tax law affecting the provision of health care benefits for public safety officers of state and local governments and for savings in long-term care plans. There are also rules that recognize the unique situation of rural cooperatives that are very common in my home State and are vital to all rural parts of this Nation. In addition, the rules for calculating lump sum distributions have finally been updated in this legislation. The change for this calculation will be phased in very slowly so that participants will not be disadvantaged by any sudden change in the rate used to make these calculations. As is the case under current law, the new law allows a plan sponsor to use different assumptions, interest rates and/or mortality tables, to determine lump sum distributions so long as the plan provides that a participant's lump sum amount is no less than the present value determined in accordance with the provision in effect under this legislation. While single-employer pension funding problems have been quite visible, the funding problems of multiemployer pension plans, that is, plans that are sponsored by big labor unions and the employers who have an obligation to contribute to them, have been invisible. Ironically, the agency that is charged with protecting the integrity of the pension insurance system has consistently declined to recommend changes to the funding rules for these plans. Their argument is that the multiemployer plans are not a threat to the insurance system. I respectfully submit that, over time, these multiemployer plans have become an unseen threat to the pension insurance system and to the participants in the plans and the employers who must fund them. If there were not risk inherent in these plans, the plans would never have come to Congress asking for changes in their rules. The changes in the pension reform bill will postpone the possible collapse of some multiemployer plans, but it they will not cure it. Much remains work remains to be done in terms of multiemployer reform. Unlike the single-employer pension system which has been amended numerous times since its enactment in 1974, the rules governing multiemployer plans have been virtually untouched since the enactment of the rules covering these plans in 1980. In 2003 the multiemployer plans came up to Capitol Hill and asked for a blanket extension of amortization of their plan gains and losses. Congress pared back that request in the provisions applicable to multiemployer plans that appear in the 2004 Pension Funding Equity Act, PFEA. Since then, the unions and management agreed upon changes to ease the multiemployer pension funding standards for financially distressed plans. The changes made here identify plans that are seriously underfunded. They also establish benchmarks for improvement. The two special categories are for plans we consider to be ``endangered'' versus those that are worse funded. Those are the plans in ``critical'' condition. At the behest of the union and management multiemployer coalition, we urge these plans to increase funding. Multiemployer plans are funded through contributions specified in collective bargaining agreements. The plans look like a defined contribution plan to the employers who pay for them since they pay a certain number of dollars per hour each participant worked under the plan. But, these plans function like, and they are, defined benefit plans for the individuals covered by them. Because the plans are funded by, in some cases hundreds of, collective bargaining agreements, improvements to overall funding cannot necessarily occur quickly. The new rules do not set painful improvement standards for underfunded plans. On the contrary, these new benchmarks for improvement are established with the complete approval of the multiemployer coalition. The new rules allow the plans to make modest increases in their overall funded status without necessarily making other sacrifices. There is one exception to this rule. That occurs when a plan is in so-called ``critical'' status. Under that circumstance, the multiemployer coalition asked for the right to eliminate early retirement subsidies for participants who are still working. Early retirement subsidies are an accrued vested benefit and under current law. They are protected from reduction or elimination by a plan amendment. Labor and management clearly felt that the underfunding in some multiemployer plans was so severe that the only way some of the plans could survive was to eliminate early retirement subsidies of those who are still working. It is no secret that I resisted that change. Cutbacks of early retirement subsidies were not reported out of the HELP Committee. Cutbacks were not passed by the Senate. The provision allowing cutbacks was added by the House of Representatives' bill. The issue of the cutback of previously accrued benefits is very controversial and a few clarifying points are needed. First, the drafters took great care to ensure that the decision to cutback accrued benefits is one that must be made by the plan trustees, and as part of the collective bargaining process. The language of the bill is clear, I believe, that any reduction of adjustable benefits can only be accomplished through a separate schedule. The language of the bill does not permit cutbacks in the default schedule. The legislation also provides a floor for benefit reductions, i.e., the so-called 1 percent rule. The bill makes clear, however, that the plan sponsor retains the ability to prepare and provide the bargaining parties with alternative schedules to the default schedule that establish lower or higher accrual and contribution rates than the rates otherwise required under the provision. Thus, the plan sponsor may supply schedules to the bargaining parties for their consideration that raise employer contributions higher than the default schedule or reduce benefit accruals below the specified 1 percent level. The legislation does not require the plan sponsor to go below the 1 percent benefits floor, but that is expressly permitted if the trustees and bargaining parties so choose. In the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, we worked on multiemployer funding reform legislation over the last year and a half. We heard testimony regarding the impact of existing multiemployer pension rules on small, privately held trucking-related companies that participate in multiemployer pension plans. These businesses participate in pension plans that are badly underfunded as a result of changes in the trucking industry and poor decisions by some of the plans' trustees--decisions that the smaller companies had virtually no knowledge of, much less control over. Despite the fact that these companies have made every pension contribution required of them, the withdrawal liabilities attributable to them has skyrocketed, and in several cases exceeds the entire net worth of the company by two and three times. I worked diligently with my colleagues to include withdrawal liability reforms for these companies in the pension bill, and to protect those small employers who came forward to voice their opinions from retaliation from the pension plan. I am pleased that we were successful in securing some modest reforms. One additional issue which is vitally important to these employers involves the proper interpretation of current law. ERISA section 4225 provides limitations on withdrawal liability for an employer that withdraws from the plan in connection with a bona-fide arms-length sale of assets to an unrelated third party. As the interpretation of this section has been subject to some legal dispute (Trustees of the Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. Geltman Industries, 784 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1986)), it is important for Congress to reiterate its interpretation of this law. Therefore, I have included for the Congressional Record a copy of PBGC Opinion Letter 93-3. In this opinion letter, PBGC explains that, ``the plain wording of section 4225 dictates that an employer that meets the requirements of both subsections (a) and (b) is entitled to an assessment of withdrawal liability that does not exceed the lesser of the amounts determined under (a) and (b).'' Further, PBGC says, ``that neither the legislative purpose nor principles of statutory construction compel a contrary conclusion.'' As the Chairman of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, I believe this letter provides a clear and concise interpretation of Section 4225 which is completely consistent with the intent of Congress. The pension reform bill amends the anti-retaliation section of ERISA to provide protection for employers who contribute to multiemployer plans and others. Specifically, the language adds a new sentence to ERISA Section 510 that states: ``In the case of a multiemployer plan, it shall be unlawful for the plan sponsor or any other person to discriminate against any contributing employer for exercising rights under this Act or for giving information or testifying in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this Act before Congress.'' The new sentence is necessary to close a loophole in the existing whistleblower protection. Over the course of the debate over multiemployer pension reforms, several companies approached Congress with concerns about how proposals would adversely affect their business operations. In June 2005, John Ward, of Standard Forwarding in East Moline, IL, speaking on behalf of those companies, testified before the Retirement Security & Aging Subcommittee of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. On several occasions after that date, the committee heard allegations of threats of retaliation against Mr. Ward for testifying before Congress and for petitioning the Congress for redress of grievances. The fact is that Mr. Ward's and the small trucking companies offered a dissenting point of view on the proposed multiemployer reforms. The other companies for whom Mr. Ward testified are: Fort Transfer of Morton, IL; Midwest Drivers of Bloomington, MN; Billings Freight, Inc. of Lexington, NC; Miller Transporters of Jackson, MI; Schwerman Trucking Co. of Milwaukee, WI; and Steel Warehouse Co., Inc. of South Bend, TN. Among those allegations was the concern that all or most of the companies had been targeted by a large multiemployer fund. The conference committee believes that such actions, if proved, would amount to unlawful retaliation under the language added to ERISA by the pension reform bill under section 205. Exercising rights under ERISA, testifying before Congress, and giving information in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this Act are protected under this provision. Retaliation in the form of threats, special audits or singling out of employers and others for adverse or disparate treatment, will not be tolerated under the law. Let me say that, had there been a conference report, there was an agreement among the majority staff to include the specific reference to the small companies who warranted protection under this antiretaliation provision because they believe they have been singled out for retaliation by one of the plans to which they had an obligation to contribute. Finally, all of Title II of the pension reform bill, except shortening the amortization from 30 to 15 years, is sunset after December 31, 2014 although any funding improvement or rehabilitation plan is permitted to remain in effect. One of my highest priorities for pension reform is clarification of the legal status of hybrid pension plans. Since late in 1998 when sensational stories about these plans first hit the newspapers, the Congress has been struggling over how to respond. I have never doubted the legality of hybrid plans. While some conversion practices may have been questioned, the plans are entirely valid. Hybrid plans have been criticized on the theory that the design was per se discriminatory. The theory suggests that the hypothetical individual account plan design unlawfully favors younger workers over older ones because younger workers could accrue interest on their account over a longer period of time than older workers. This theory amounts to a declaration that the ``time-value of money'' is age discriminatory. Not surprisingly, given the confused logic of stating that compound interest in a pension plan is age discriminatory, most courts that have reviewed the age appropriateness of hybrid plan designs have found them to be legitimate. Indeed, the first federal court to review the question stated ``Plaintiffs' proposed interpretation would produce strange results totally at odds with the intended goal of the OBRA 1986 pension age discrimination provisions (Eaton v. Onan (S.D. N.Y. 2000)).'' The case law validating the hybrid design includes three federal court decisions issued since a 2003 rogue decision in the Southern District of Illinois. These decisions explicitly reject that court's reasoning and conclusion (Tootle v. ARINC (D. Md. 2004), Register v. PNC (E.D. Pa. 2005) and Hirt v. Equitable (S.D. N. Y. 2006) and hold the hybrid pension design to be legal. Consistent with these numerous federal court decisions, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 15 years issued approvals for individual cash balance plans and the Treasury Department and IRS repeatedly issued guidance as to the validity of the cash balance design. It is not time for the IRS' self- imposed moratorium on determination letters for sponsors of these plans to end. For purposes of applying the age discrimination test, the bill permits a plan to express an employee's accrued benefit ``under the terms of the plan'' as an account balance or current value of the accumulated percentage of the employee's final average compensation. This rule was intended to limit, for purposes of age discrimination testing, the use of an account balance to cash balance plans and the use of a current value to pension equity plans. However, the phrase ``under the terms of the plan'' could create the impression that the rule applies only to cash balance and pension equity plans that define in the plan document the term ``accrued benefit'' in this way. Many cash balance and pension equity plans define ``accrued benefit'' as an age-65 annuity, even though that annuity is determined by reference to an account balance or current value. In many cases, this definition has been required by the Internal Revenue Service. It is important to clarify that Congress does not intend to require a plan document to include a specific definition of the term ``accrued benefit'' to apply the standard set forth in this legislation. This bill sets forth a test for age discrimination in defined benefit pension plans that compares an employee's accrued benefit with that of any similarly situated younger employee. For this purpose, an employee's accrued benefit may be expressed as the current balance in a hypothetical account for any plan that determines the employee's accrued benefit (or any portion thereof) by reference to a hypothetical account, such as a cash balance plan. Similarly, for this purpose, an employee's accrued benefit may be expressed as a current value equal to an accumulated percentage of the employee's final average pay for any plan that determines an employee's accrued benefit (or any portion thereof) by reference to such current value, such as a pension equity plan. But the bill does not elevate form over substance. How a plan expresses the accrued benefit for purposes of the age discrimination rules is not contingent upon how the plan document defines the term ``accrued benefit.'' For example, a cash balance plan may, for purposes of the age discrimination rules, express the accrued benefit as the current balance of the hypothetical account determined under the terms of the plan, even if the plan defines the term ``accrued benefit'' in a different form, such as an annuity commencing at normal retirement age that is based on the hypothetical account. Similarly, a pension equity plan may express the accrued benefit as a current value equal to an accumulated percentage of the employee's final average pay as determined under the terms of the plan, even if the plan defines the term ``accrued benefit'' in a different form, such as an annuity commencing at normal retirement age that is based on that current value. This flexibility is important because pension plans will often define the ``accrued benefit'' in different fashions. For example, the IRS has frequently insisted that plans define the term ``accrued benefit'' as ``an annuity commencing at normal retirement age'', even though the annuity is determined by reference to a hypothetical account or a current value equal to an accumulated percentage of an employee's final average pay. Any hybrid plan including a cash balance or pension equity plan may also apply the age discrimination test by expressing the employee's accrued benefit as an annuity beginning at normal retirement age (or at the employee's current age, if later), as determined under the terms of the plan. If a cash balance or pension equity plan were to do so, it likely would rely on the indexing rules elsewhere in section 701 to satisfy the age discrimination test. The pension reform bill also provides new specifications for hybrid plan conversions. These are entirely new requirements and they have been worked out among the parties to these discussions. The rule specifies that for conversions, plans should follow an ``A + B'' formula. This means that the benefit accrued to date under the old formula, that was in effect prior to the conversion, must be added to the benefit under the new formula beginning on the date the conversion takes effect. Under this A + B formula, any early retirement subsidy that was accrued up to the date of the conversion would be preserved in the benefit of the participant. This early retirement benefit would be payable only if the participant earned the requisite number of years of service to entitle him or her to the benefit subsidy. The participant would not be entitled to any additional amount of subsidy, but only the amount earned to-date could be paid out and only assuming he or she worked the number of years required under the plan to earn it. The new rule does not require a plan to pay an early retirement subsidy in lump sum unless the plan provides that it will do so. This is consistent with current law and practice. The hybrid language also corrects the so-called pension whipsaw for distributions after the date of enactment. The parties to the pension discussions took the view that the position taken by the IRS in Notice 96-8 was an incorrect interpretation of present law. Many of us who were engaged in the pension reform discussions noted that Notice 96-8 was never finalized by the IRS in their regulations and we observed that the Treasury Department had been reviewing the position in Notice 96-8 for some time, but without result. The approach taken in Notice 96-8 can actually harm many participants. Many employers have reduced the rate of interest crediting under their hybrid plans due to concerns that over the requirements of the notice. In addition to its other flaws, the approach taken in the notice provides a larger benefit to be paid to a participant who takes a distribution before normal retirement age than for a participant who waits to take his or her benefit distribution. Thus Notice 96-8 would penalize an employee who waits to take a distribution. This is a perverse result for a rule governing retirement plans. As we developed these new rules for hybrid plans, we were cognizant that the system is voluntary and as such, it must accommodate the needs and concerns of employers and employees. A viable pension system must grant plan sponsors the ability to change their plan designs on a prospective basis without undue restrictions or mandates on benefit levels. This legislation is a clarification of the law; the action in producing this clarification should not cast any negative inference on the legality of the hybrid plans. There are provisions in this legislation that I believe bring our pension retirement laws into greater sync with our future retirement needs for financial education and with the operations of our quickly evolving financial markets. One provision concerns the expansion of investment advice to workers while other provisions are designed to allow ERISA plans to achieve similar benefits and efficiency of our modernized financial markets that is available currently to retail and other institutional investors. The investment advice provisions will provide much needed financial advice and guidance for the millions of workers and their families on how to invest their hard earned monies for retirement. The compromise achieved in the legislation would predicate upon the development of computerized models to help workers to investment monies through 401(k) accounts. Significant safeguards were put into the legislation to ensure that the computerized models were certified by independent third parties. In addition, greater auditing of the use of the computerized models and enhanced disclosures will ensure that the models are being used properly and that workers understand how investment advice should be used and how they can still seek independent advice for guidance and help. Everyone at the conference table recognized the significant differences between the operation of 401(k) accounts and IRA accounts. While 401(k) accounts within defined contribution plans offer a limited menu of investment options, IRA accounts may have hundreds of various investment options and alternatives spanning a vast array of securities, debt, insurance and other financial products. With respect to these IRA accounts, I applaud the measures in the legislation that would encourage the development of computerized models to give individuals guidance on how to invest their IRA monies. However, I am afraid that the type and sophistication of the computerized models for IRA's may not be obtainable and that the computerized models presented to the Department of Labor for review may be trimmed down to encompass only ``life cycle'' type of investment options. This should not be the objective. As IRA accounts are different, the regulatory regime for giving investment advice guidance should be based upon to overcome the real world hurdles in getting appropriate investment advice to individuals. It also should be noted that the Department of Labor, in 2001, issued an advisory opinion to Sun America to provide a structure for providing both traditional advice and discretionary management. It was the goal and objective of the Members of the Conference to keep this advisory opinion intact as well as other pre-existing advisory opinions granted by the Department. This legislation does not alter the current or future status of the plans and their many participants operating under these advisory opinions. Rather, the legislation builds upon these advisory opinions and provides alternative means for providing investment advice which is protective of the interests of plan participants and IRA owners. The legislation also contains provisions to modernize ERISA to align it with our financial markets of today, not the financial markets of 1974. These modernizations provisions, such as permitting the use of electronic communication networks, will put ERISA plans in parity with the current ability of retail and other institutional investors to use these modernizations. Specifically with respect to the provision on electronic communication networks and similar trading venues, it was not the intention to overturn existing interpretations or guidance granted by the Department of Labor to securities exchanges registered pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The legislation's provision is clear that it is applicable solely to electronic communication networks and similar trading venues and not to securities exchanges. With respect to the block trading provisions, the legislation is not intended to be inconsistent with the Department of Labor's views with respect to the recently amended prohibited transaction exemption, PTE 75-1. Should this legislation be enacted into law, I would like to comment on the history of pension legislation. The negotiations that have given birth to this new law and its place in time have been very difficult, but that is by no means unique to the history of ERISA. This legislation marks the first major, comprehensive reform of the pension funding rules in 32 years. ERISA, itself, was enacted in 1974, 11 years after the collapse of the Studebaker pension plan in 1963 and after extremely heated debates in the House and Senate. The first major reform of single-employer rules after ERISA was enacted occurred in 1987. Those reforms came only after a long and contentious conference. The conference began in March 1987, but it did not conclude easily or amicably. It was not until December 22, 1987 that the legislation was signed into law. The next major reform of single-employer plans occurred in 1994, seven more years after the '87 amendments. That legislation was not enacted until December 8, 1994. Multiemployer plans have not been revisited or reformed once since their enactment in 1980. It seems that pension legislation is marked by disagreement and strife, but this should not be the case. There have been times when partisanship was put aside and when House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats sought to ``do the right thing'' rather than score points. One example of that bi-partisan, bi-cameral cooperation is the pension provisions of EGTRRA. Those provisions would be made permanent by this legislation. EGTRRA made good reforms and I hope they will become permanent. They help Americans save for retirement, increase portability, protect plan integrity, increase the limits on defined benefit, defined contribution plans and IRAs. EGTRRA allows catch-up contributions for individuals who are age 50 and older and they make permanent many other beneficial tax and ERISA provisions. I hope we can return to those days of pension bi-cameral and bi- partisan cooperation. Given the graying of America and the on-coming retirement of the baby-boomers, the American people need Congress to enact legislation that will improve the day-to-day lives of ordinary Americans. I hope this legislation can and will make modest steps in that direction. Mr. President, I would like to make a special note about the bill before us. This legislation is essentially the product of the conference committee of which I chaired. While I am pleased we are on the verge of passing an historic measure, I must briefly mention concern, as any chairman should, for how we arrived at the bill before us today rather than a conference report. It was our intention to make final decisions on the very last items of the conference and to report back to both the House and the Senate with a completed, bipartisan conference report. Unfortunately, the conference process was cut short and was taken out of our hands. I truly hope that this is not the start of new precedent on how conferences should be conducted. If future actions repeat the actions taken here, then the future significance of chairmen and conference committees are in severe jeopardy. At the very heart of the Congress as a whole and the Senate, are the traditions and precedents to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. When those traditions and precedents are usurped, then we run the risk of making everything before us meaningless. I offer this statement as one of caution and not one of damnation. Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the key people involved in this bill. The pension bill we are about to pass could not have been drafted if partisanship and politics had been allowed to intervene. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Grassley and Baucus for their extremely hard work on a complex piece of legislation. I appreciate their commitment to the private pension system and their willingness to drive onward to solutions to the many tough decisions we had to make. It has truly been an honor to work so closely with such fine statesmen. I also want to thank Senators DeWine and Mikulski for their extraordinary work as the leaders of the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging. Their hearings last year created the basis for this bill. Their commitment to pensions of ordinary Americans and their sense of fairness greatly improved the bill before us. There are many people who worked behind the scenes to get this bill completed. I would like to thank all of my staff for their diligence and commitment. In particular I thank: HELP Committee Staff Director Katherine McGuire; Greg Dean, who played a central role on the investment advice and prohibited transactions bill language. He expertly managed discussions throughout the process and brought the various players together time and time again to move the bill forward; Diann Howland, my pension policy director, who bravely agreed to come back to the hill and take on her third major pension reform bill. In light of overwhelming odds, she brought a fresh perspective to complex issues every day and should be commended for her leadership in getting this bill done; David Thompson, he brought a superb understanding of the intricate and complex labor issues to the table; and Amy Angelier--my crackerjack budget staffer and policy advisor. She was on top of each and every aspect of the budget aspects of this bill and helped guide its success. My staff worked closely with the staffs of my other Senate conferees and those individuals deserve thanks. They are Michael Myers, Portia Wu and Holly Fechner of Senator Kennedy's HELP Committee staff; Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Judy Miller and Stu Sirkin on the staff of the Finance Committee for Senators Grassley and Baucus. I wanted to especially commend Mark Prater for his leadership over the last week helping us maneuver through troubled waters. I would also like to thank the nonpartisan legislative counsels and staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation for their very long hours and professionalism. Every person with a pension should join me in thanking Jim Fransen, Stacy Kern, Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nikole Flax. Finally, I want to thank my chief of staff, Flip McConnaughey. He did an excellent job holding the office together and keeping a focus on Wyoming-specific issues when the pension conference kicked into full gear. In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to key people involved in this bill over the past 2 years. The pension bill we are about to pass could not have been drafted if partisanship and politics had not been laid aside for the greater good. I thank Senators Kennedy, Grassley, and Baucus for their extremely hard work on this complex piece of legislation. I appreciate their commitment to the private pension system and their willingness to drive onward to solutions to the many tough decisions we had to make. It has truly been an honor to work so closely with such fine statesmen. I also thank Senators DeWine and Mikulski for their extraordinary work as leaders of the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging. There are many people who worked behind the scenes to get this bill completed. I would like to thank all of my staff for their diligence and commitment. I will go into some of those in greater detail later. My staff worked with other Senate conferees and other individuals. I will mention those after we have the vote so people can be on their way. I thank the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's staff, Jim Fransen and Stacy Kern. And, finally, I thank my chief of staff, Flip McConnaughey. I urge my colleagues to support this historic piece of legislation which the President will quickly sign into law. It will save a number of pension plans, but, more importantly, it will save the people that need these pensions.

Mr. ENZI. The capital preservation rule applies to applicable defined benefit plans, such as cash balance and pension equity plans. To illustrate how the rule operates in the case of a cash balance plan, the rule requires that the cumulative effect of all the interest credits to an employee's hypothetical account may not reduce the account balance below the sum of all the pay credits made to the account.

Mr. ENZI. Yes. The two terms are synonymous. Since the account in a cash balance plan is hypothetical, the contributions credited to it are hypothetical also. Hypothetical contributions is merely another name for pay credits. The second rule, the loss protection rule, applies to all defined benefit plans that use any form of benefit indexing. Thus, the second rule applies not only to cash balance and pension equity plans but also to other defined benefit plans that index benefits. The loss prevention rule would apply in the same way as the capital preservation rule in the above example of a cash balance plan. However, because the loss prevention rule applies to a broader group of plans than just applicable defined benefit plans, the rule is written in more general terms than the capital preservation rule, which applies to a narrower universe of plans. To illustrate how the loss protection rule operates in the case of a defined benefit plan that indexes benefits by reference to changes in the Consumer Price Index, the rule requires that the cumulative effect of such indexing may not cause a decrease in an employee's benefit below what it would have been in the absence of such indexing. Although it is very unlikely, this would occur if there were a sustained period of deflation in which the overall change in the CPI were negative rather than positive. In that extremely unlikely case, the plan could not reflect the cumulative negative change in the CPI.

Mr. ENZI. The capital preservation and loss protection rules are intended to provide long-term protection to employees, so the determination of whether the rules are satisfied is made at the time benefits commence but not beforehand. In the case of plans that index benefits after benefits begin, the determination is made by reference to the benefit in effect at the time benefits begin. lump sums from hybrid pension plans

Mr. ENZI. Yes. The provisions do apply to all distributions made after the date of enactment.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, it is. credit counseling

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment and do special thanks on the bill that was just passed. I congratulate everybody who has worked on the bill. It is going to make a difference for at least 145 million people in the United States. It is a very important bill, and it has been a long road with a lot of twists and a lot of difficulties. They all got ironed out with a very convincing vote. I appreciate all the people who participated in this effort and were able to lend their expertise, their knowledge, their background, and put together something that will solve the pension difficulties for this country. I particularly thank Senator Kennedy, who is the ranking member on my committee. He worked with me through the drafting in committee, getting it through committee, then merging it with the Finance Committee, then getting it through the Senate as a whole, and then serving on the conference committee to get it all ironed out. He has been delightful to work with on this issue and other issues that deal with health, education, labor, as well as the pension bill. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their extremely hard work. They brought the finance piece, the tax part together. They are experts in that area. They work together extremely well and extremely hard. Without their participation, this bill would not have been possible. I appreciate everybody's commitment to the private pension system and their willingness to strive for solutions, not just to look at issues, and to make the tough decisions we had to make. I also thank Senators DeWine and Mikulski, again. They started the hearings on this bill before we ever got to the bill part, the drafting. They have worked together well on the aging issues of this country for a long time. They know them backward and forward. As the bill went through the process, they made sure that specific instances they were aware of were known, the details were known, and we could consider ways to solve those as part of an entire package as opposed to piecemeal. They were extremely cooperative in working on it. Through the final days of the conference committee, they were engaged in asking questions and making a difference for this bill. I can't say enough about Senators DeWine and Mikulski and their extraordinary work. But there are many people who worked behind the scenes to get this bill completed. I thank all of my staff for their diligence, commitment, expertise, and hard work. Since March, many of them have not had a weekend off. They have spent 12, 16, 18 hours a day working this bill. That is a huge commitment. I am sure a weight has been lifted from their backs. Without their expertise, we would not have been able to do it. First off I would like to thank my staff director, Katherine McGuire. Without her, this bill never would be enacted. She had extraordinary efforts with the committee and then the conference committee and was able to pull people together to get an agreement. A lot of times, it meant not a compromise but finding a whole different way of doing it and engaging people and doing some research to find those other ways and even relying on some other committees to lend their expertise to do it. We made it through. Greg Dean, our general counsel, played a central role in the investment advice and prohibited transactions bill language. That is a very specialized part. He helped me on the Banking Committee when I was subcommittee chairman there and then moved to this committee. He expertly managed discussions throughout the process, and he brought various players together time and again to move the bill forward. It is a very technical area, and it takes someone with that kind of technical expertise to do it. I thank Ilyse Schuman, my chief counsel for the committee. She was able to pull together all the legal issues and was able to talk on that level with all of the other Senators and Members of the House to pull this off. I thank Diann Howland, who is my pension policy director, who bravely agreed to come back to the Hill and take on her third major pension reform. In light of this, she brought a fresh perspective to the complex issues every day and has to be commended for leadership in getting this bill done. She probably knows more about pensions than anybody I have ever met and has been a valuable resource, knowing the history as well as being able to move forward on a new bill and get some things done that are different from what has been done before but things that have preserved pensions for people. David Thompson brought a superb understanding of the intricate and complex legislation issues to the table and has a unique ability to explain these difficult issues in relatively few words and also explain some of the charts that went along with them. Again, I want to thank Amy Angelier who works as my budget staffer and approps staffer and policy adviser. She knows the intricacies of how the budget and the appropriations and the policy all have to fit together, whether it is pensions or whether it is banking or whether it is the rest of the issues we cover under Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. She was on top of each and every aspect of the budget aspects of this bill and helped guide it to success. Now, my staff didn't do this alone. My staff worked closely with the staffs of my other Senate conferees, and those individuals deserve thanks. They are Michael Myers, Portia Wu, and Holly Fechner of Senator Kennedy's HELP Committee staff; Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Judy Miller, Stu Sirkin, Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, on the staff of the Finance Committee for Senators Grassley and Baucus. I especially commend Mark Prater for his leadership over the last week helping us to maneuver through troubled waters. He really knows the tax issues and knows the interplay between the moving parts in that whole area and was a tremendous help. I would also like to thank the nonpartisan legislative counsels and the staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation for their very long hours and professionalism. They had to be in with all of the different times as all of these meetings were going on. Every person with a pension should join me in thanking Jim Fransen, Stacy Kern, Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nikole Flax. Finally, I thank my chief of staff, Flip McConnaughey. He did an excellent job holding the office together and keeping a focus on Wyoming's specific issues when the pension conference kicked into full gear. So I appreciate everybody's support of this legislation. I hope I haven't left anybody out. There have been so many people who have been involved in this, as I said, for just countless hours. It has been an incredible commitment of time and effort and knowledge, and I really appreciate that because without the kind of teamwork that we had on this, we would not have had the kind of approval we have. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to add my congratulations to the people who have had a key role in doing this bill. First of all, I want to recognize the leader, who always inspires us on a lot of these issues and then provides the time for us to be able to do it as well--not only on this but on the pensions bill. He has to handle a lot of strategy and a lot of different personalities and does just a marvelous job moving the whole body along. I primarily want to thank Senator Dodd and Senator Santorum for bringing this to our committee and working it diligently. I also thank them for sending all the different people to see me who had an interest in this bill, who had a number of different likes and wants and needs. They are to be commended for the tremendous effort they put into making sure that some day we have a solution to autism. It is the most diligent-working bunch of people I think I have ever been associated with. They are also at the very beginning of a process, it seems. We need to expedite that process. This bill will help to get that done. Senator Santorum has just been a real leader on this issue and probably understands it better than anybody that I have worked with and has worked through all the difficulties of the last-minute kinds of changes. I thank all of you for getting this for America. One of the things this bill does is help people understand autism better. It is relatively unknown. This elevates it. As we continue to do that, we will get solutions. I thank all of you for doing that.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 843, the Combating Autism Act. I am pleased to note that the Senate will pass this bill today. This legislation, which was recently reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, focuses on expanding autism spectrum disorder research and coordination at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. It also increases awareness of autism spectrum disorder and its symptoms through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Additionally, the bill integrates our various health, education, and disability programs that serve individuals and families affected by autism spectrum disorder and ensures that the community of people affected by this disorder have a voice in all of this. No one knows exactly how many individuals are affected by autism spectrum disorder, but some studies suggest it could be as high as 1 out of every 166 American individuals. But there are many things we do know about autism spectrum disorder. We know we need to begin intervention as early as possible to help individuals with autism spectrum disorder reach their full potential. And given the importance of early intervention, we need further research into the possible causes of autism spectrum disorder. We need to understand more about the various forms of autism spectrum disorder to improve our ability to provide the right kinds of intervention and support. And, we need to provide better integration of the health, education, and disability programs already available to meet the increased demand for these interventions, supports and services. I believe the ``Combating Autism Act'' is an important step toward addressing these needs and finding some solutions that will improve the lives of individuals and families whose daily lives have been turned upside down by autism spectrum disorder. This bill is the result of a tremendous amount of work across party lines. I want to thank the original bill cosponsors, Senators Santorum and Dodd for introducing this legislation and for working with me to fine-tune it. I would also like to express my deep appreciation and thanks to the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for his hard work during this process. Of course, in providing thanks to the members, I would be remiss if I did not mention the staff. Specifically, I want to thank Jen Vesey with Senator Santorum; Jim Fenton, Ben Berwick, Tamar Magarik, and Elizabeth Hoffman with Senator Dodd, and Caya Lewis with Senator Kennedy's office, as well as my staff--Steve Northrup, Aaron Bishop, Tec Chapman, Martina Bebin, and Shana Christrup. I also want to thank the various groups and individuals who work on behalf of individuals and families affected by autism spectrum disorder. I appreciate the way in which this community of advocates has come together to work with me and my colleagues on this. If they had not worked together so well--with each other and with us as our Committee worked on this bill--I doubt we would be here today.