Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkins, and other Members, in seeking final passage of the Assistive Technology Act of 2004. Senator Harkin and I were determined to make the reauthorization of this piece of legislation a bipartisan process from the beginning. We have worked closely with the House of Representatives, Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce, and the Small Business Administration as well as the, business, and research and development communities, the Assistive Technology Act Projects, the Alternative Financing Programs, and the disability community. Together we have successfully crafted a bipartisan and bicameral bill that we are all proud of. This bill follows the administration's lead, and the goals that President Bush set forth in the New Freedom Initiative. We are confident that the bill will be overwhelmingly supported by the President and increase access to assistive technologies for thousands of individuals with disabilities. I am also submitting several letters of support for the bill, from various groups, for the Record. On February 1, 2001, President Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative--a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by expanding education and employment opportunities, promoting increased access into daily community life, and increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies. By the Senate finally naming conferees for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act earlier this month, and by seeking passage of the Assistive Technology Act of 2004 today, we are helping the President fulfill America's promise of ``tearing down the barriers to equality that face many of the 54 million Americans with disabilities.'' One quarter of the President's New Freedom Initiative focuses on technology, and the technology objective is comprised of two key components. The first is to expand Federal investment in assistive technology research and development by increasing the budgets of the Rehabilitative Engineering Research Centers' for assistive technologies, creating a new fund to help bring assistive technologies to market, and better coordinate the Federal effort in prioritizing immediate assistive and universally designed technology needs in the disability community. The second is to enhance access to assistive technology by reducing costs associated with purchasing assistive technology and funding for low-interest loan programs to purchase assistive technologies. The Assistive Technology Act of 2004 before us today is designed to strengthen and build upon these two components. Our efforts focus on enhancing access to technology, reducing the costs associated with purchasing such devices, and increasing technical assistance to entities that serve students with disabilities that receive transition services, adults with disabilities maintaining or transitioning to community living and to employers. Specifically, we accomplish these goals by: reducing bureaucracy; fostering private/public sector relationships; and coordinating Federal initiatives. Current law focuses on system change activities, and providing information and referral services to people with disabilities and their families. Systems change efforts and information and referral services are important, as people are being born with or acquiring disabilities daily. However, according to several Federal agencies, an individual with a disability may be considered eligible for, and could benefit from, more than 20 Federal programs that directly or indirectly provide assistive technology. Additionally, there are over 25 Federal laws on the financing of assistive technology, all of which impacts local access to such technology. Considering the number of Federal and State laws that a person has to navigate in order to access services, how long will it take for systems change efforts to remove barriers for accessing assistive technologies for a person with a disability living in Lincoln, NH? Systems change efforts, while worthwhile, do not immediately impact and help a person with a disability obtain assistive technology that he or she may need today. Therefore, this bill modifies the current list of authorized activities by expanding the authority of the State Assistive Technology Act projects to increase the ability of persons with disabilities to experience or obtain assistive technology. Our bill provides the State projects with a tangible set of activities, yet at the same time provides State flexibility to address emerging State needs. Under this bill, States will provide citizens with access to device loan, reutilization, and financing programs, and equipment demonstration centers by developing such programs, or collaborating with other entities in the State currently operating such programs. In public forums that were held with the disability community, we consistently heard about the abandonment of equipment by persons with disabilities simply because the purchaser did not have an opportunity to try it out or see it demonstrated prior to purchasing the devise. The purpose of device loan and reutilization programs, and equipment demonstration centers is to provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to receive proper assessments and evaluations for assistive technology, test and obtain information about various devices, and borrow devices and equipment before it is purchased. The financing programs provide access to low interest loans allowing an individual to purchase the device for him or herself or a family member, without having to wait for, rely on, or navigate through the red tape created by our bureaucratic Government systems. Each of these new requirements will help make the most of limited public resources in an environment that emphasizes consumer choice in and control of assistive technology services and funding. Another major theme of this reauthorization is the reduction of costs associated with assistive technologies and to enhance research and development opportunities in this area. In December of 2003, we began meeting with individuals within the disability community, the State Assistive Technology Act projects, large and small technology companies, trade associations, and research, development and marketing entities to learn about costs associated with developing assistive technology, and what could be done within this reauthorization to assist with this issue. We learned that many companies, most of which are small businesses, that produce assistive technologies develop products that benefit people that have a specific disability, or a low incidence disability, such as a visual impairment, a hearing loss, or a significant cognitive impairment. Because of the limited number of people that can benefit from these valuable and life- altering devices, the cost of the product remains high. Furthermore, the costs associated with creating a device are high. On the other side, prices for such devices are so expensive that people that need them cannot afford to buy them, and often go without, therefore creating a vicious cycle. We also learned that numerous companies have product ideas that are ``on the drawing board,'' but the company does not have the funds necessary to develop products and send them to market in a timely fashion. Additionally, we learned that industry has not created their own standards to which assistive technology should be designed. As an example, companies create products that have their own operating systems and/or ports. This is a benefit for the proprietor, as no one else knows exactly what is in the operating system code, no one else can modify it, and people have to purchase the proprietors cord or other item to go with the device. The downside is that an individual with multiple pieces of technology cannot be assured that the various products he or she has can or will work together. Using a Braille Notetaker, for example, the notetaker does not use standard software, and therefore cannot be connected to a computer using an ordinary, over-the-counter cable. Instead, the user must buy the cord separately or purchase additional software, often leaving people unable to work using versions of software that their colleagues use; all of which increases the number of dollars the consumer must spend in order to function in today's society. To address these concerns, the bill strengthens relationships between federally funded programs, the disability community, private-sector employers, and assistive technology vendors and researchers. It encourages market-based solutions and approaches to developing standards and increasing the number of products and the speed in which products go to market. This will, in-turn, make assistive technologies more affordable. The bill authorizes the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Education to make grants available to for-profit and nonprofit entities resulting in two specific results. The first grant promotes the development of new or improved commercially available assistive technologies that are quick to reach the consumer market and easier for individuals with disabilities to learn to use, customize, fix or update. The second is to encourage the development of innovative and efficient technical practices and strategies for assistive technology products so that they will more reliably interact with the latest and future mainstream information technology, telecommunications products, and other assistive technology such as computer software and hardware. The final major theme of this reauthorization is providing technical assistance to entities that serve students with disabilities that receive transition services, adults with disabilities maintaining or transitioning to community living, and to employers. We do not want, nor expect States to duplicate programs by creating additional financial loan, equipment loan, reutilization programs and demonstration centers for these populations. That would be a foolish use of federal dollars and would be in violation of a duplication clause in the bill. Our intent is for the State assistive technology projects to inform these specific groups about the beneficial aspects of assistive technology. The bill accomplishes this task by strengthening relationships between federally funded programs, such as the Assistive Technology Act projects, and private-sector employers by directing the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Education to make a grant available to for-profit and nonprofit entities to enhance public/private partnerships. This grant opportunity supports the development of public service announcements, which can be modified for regional use, to reach out to small businesses, the aging population, and people with disabilities about the benefits of assistive technology. On July 23 of this year, the U.S. Access Board issued its first comprehensive revision of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, ADAAG, since publishing the original ADAAG in 1991. Among other things, the new ADAAG contains changes to the requirements for employee work areas that will affect many employers once these requirements are issued as regulations by the Department of Justice. Many employers are not aware of the extent to which the Americans with Disabilities Act may require them to make their workplaces accessible. The newly issued ADA Accessibility Guidelines have toughened these requirements, making it more important than ever for employers to know what their obligations are, and to plan accordingly. This bill aggressively engages businesses, especially small businesses, by providing them with greater access to technical assistance and technology so that they can accommodate employees with disabilities and adhere to ADAAG. Additionally, we place an emphasis on the State projects to provide technical assistance that meets the needs of aging workers that are acquiring disabilities and who may need assistive technology to maintain their current level of productivity. In developing this bill, we have learned from the progressive thinking of the President and the resourcefulness of our Federal agencies and have taken measures to complement their actions. During the Bush administration, funding for special education has increased by more than $3.7 billion for the Part B State Grants program. In fiscal year 2004, nearly $10.1 billion is available for this program, which represents an increase of 59 percent since 2001. Additionally, the Senate version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act promotes the involvement of the State vocational rehabilitation system with students with disabilities while still in secondary school. Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act, the ``Rehabilitation Act,'' which passed the Senate in November of last year contains similar conforming language. In 1999, the Supreme Court handed down the Olmstead decision, which affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to live in the community, rather than in institutions. However, it was not until President Bush was sworn into office that that decision was implemented on the Federal level. President Bush realized that making the promise of full integration a reality for people with disabilities does not only mean changing existing practices that favor institutionalization over community-based treatment. It also means providing the affordable housing, transportation, and access to assistive technology and State and local government programs and activities that make community life possible. On July 18, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13217, requiring coordination among numerous Federal agencies that administer programs affecting access to the community for people with disabilities of all ages. The Executive Order has prompted various branches of the Federal Government to make disability issues a priority. In the fiscal year 2001 Department of Labor appropriation, Congress approved an Office of Disability Employment Policy, ODEP, to be headed by an Assistant Secretary. ODEP's mission is to provide leadership to increase employment opportunities for adults and youth with disabilities. The Secretary of Health and Human Services created the Office of Disability in October 2002. The Director of the Office reports to the Secretary and serves as an advisor on HHS activities relating to disabilities. The Office on Disability oversees the implementation and coordination of disability programs, policies and special initiatives for 54 million persons with disabilities. In July of 2003, the Department of Commerce unveiled an initiative to support the development of assistive technologies and to promote the U.S. assistive technology industry. Moreover, in December of 2003, leaders from the Department of Labor, DOL, and the Small Business Administration, SBA, signed a Strategic Alliance Memo. This document formalized an agreement between the two entities to implement a coordinated, interagency initiative to improve opportunities for people with disabilities to be employed by small businesses, for people acquiring disabilities due to the aging process and wanting to maintain employment, or for people with disabilities to become small business owners. Finally, a little over 6 weeks ago, the Rehabilitation Services Administration at the Department of Education hosted a National Employment Conference. The conference focused on State vocational rehabilitation staff creating and maintaining employer development, business relations, large-scale job placement, and developing of vocational rehabilitation's national network that provides qualified job candidates and employment services to business. Individuals with disabilities were not a priority in a Presidential administration's domestic policy goals and objects since 1993. This changed when President Bush became President of the United States in 2001, and he signed the Olmstead Executive Order and announced the New Freedom Initiative. The current administration recognizes and believes in the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society. This belief has been put into action in numerous ways that I have previously explained. Through this bill, Congress is continuing and enhancing the administration's efforts by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, promoting increased access into daily community life, and helping members of this misunderstood and underutilized group of citizens achieve and succeed. Although this reauthorization focuses on three major objectives, the bill takes an important step forward by establishing a grant to the American Indian Consortium for a Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology program, PAAT. The Native American Protection & Advocacy Project was established in 1994 to carry out protection and advocacy system programs. The Consortium encompasses 25,351 square miles in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah and it provides legal representation to Native Americans with disabilities and serves the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation and five smaller tribes. We were pleased to make some modifications to the PAAT program as it is a major force in ensuring that children and adults with disabilities can get access to critically needed assistive technology in a variety of settings--school, home, and at work. Additionally, we stabilized funding for the State programs by supporting State efforts to improve the provision of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. To ensure that the Federal commitment to independent living and the full participation of individuals with disabilities in society guaranteed through the President's New Freedom Initiative is upheld, the bill removes the sunset provision in the 1998 Act, therefore creating a typical reauthorization cycle. The bill also sets a minimum State allotment of $410,000 per year in order to offset the costs for the additional requirements placed on States to maintain the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology-related assistance for individuals with disabilities of all ages. However, Congress expects States to take ownership of and expand upon the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology-related assistance. I thank Senator Harkin, and his staff, particularly Mary Giliberti, for their hard work and dedication in putting together a bipartisan bill that will assist thousands of individuals with disabilities access services and devices that they so desperately need. Next, I would also like to thank my staff, Denzel McGuire and Aaron Bishop, for their hard work in helping put together a bipartisan and bicameral bill. I also thank Senators Roberts, DeWine, Warner, Ensign, Enzi, Kennedy, Reed, McCain, and Specter, and their staff members, Jennifer Swenson, Mary Beth Luna, John Robinson, Lindsay Lovlien, Scott Fleming, Michelle Dirst, Connie Garner, Kent Mitchell, Elyse Wasch, Seth Gerson, Ken Lasala, Mark Laisch, and Jennifer Castagna for their tireless effort through this bipartisan process. Next, I would like to thank Congressmen Boehner, and Kildee, and their respective staff, David Cleary and Alex Nock for their willingness ability to negotiate a bipartisan and bicameral bill that will affect the lives of thousands of individuals with disabilities. Additionally, I thank the various entities that provided Senate staff with invaluable technical assistance. This includes: Liz King, assistant council for the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel for working with our staff and drafting this legislation, and the research of Sidath Panangala, policy analyst for Congressional Record Service. I also thank members of various Federal Departments that were instrumental in providing us technical assistance while putting this bill together. From the Department of Education: Dr. Troy Justesen, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS, at the Department of Education, and Carol Cichoswski, and Wava Gregory staff of the Budget Office, and Eric Shulz in Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs. From the Department of Commerce: Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Ben Wu, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, and Angela Ewell-Madison, Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs. From the Department of Labor: W. Roy Grizzard, Jr., Ed.D., Assistant Secretary of the Office for Disability Employment Policy at the Department of Labor, his chief of staff, J. Kim Cook, Brian Parsons, supervisory policy advisor, and Blake Hanlon, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Finally, I thank the fine team at the Small Business Administration: Porter Montgomery, associate administrator for policy and planning, Geoff Green, senior analyst, and Michael Berkholtz, assistant administrator for congressional affairs. Finally, I thank the State Assistive Technology Act projects, and especially the New Hampshire Technology Partnership Project, for providing us with information as we developed this bill. Additionally, I thank the research and development industry, businesses and employers, service providers, and the various and multiple members of the disability community that worked tirelessly, helping us develop an excellent piece of legislation. Mr. President, I look forward to the final passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in recent days, much ink has been spilled and much rhetoric bandied about on the subject of the 8.5 percent interest rate on student loans the Federal Government guarantees to a handful of lenders. We all agree that this loophole, which results in windfall profits to some lenders and banks, should be ended. Only recently have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even acknowledged that this was a problem. It should be noted, that Democrats not only created and protected this flawed policy during the Clinton administration they failed to correct the problem when they were in the majority. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to ending the exploitation of the 9.5 percent interest rate guarantee. The President submitted a budget in February that closed the loophole. House Republicans introduced a higher education bill in May that also would close the loophole. But Democrats showed no interest in moving either of those pieces of legislation. Instead, they have recently offered a series of misguided, ineffectual attempts to close the loophole. The Kildee amendment that passed the House did not close the loophole--a fact even Senate Democrats acknowledge. That amendment prohibited discretionary funds from being used to administer the 9.5 percent payments or for the payments themselves. The fact that such payments are made with mandatory funds under the Higher Education Act renders the amendment powerless. Similarly, Senator Murray's amendment that was rejected at the Labor- HHS-Education markup failed to close the loophole for several reasons. Her amendment would have allowed lenders to transfer loans within their portfolio to continue to receive the 9.5 percent guarantee, a practice explicitly criticized in the GAO report on this issue. Worse, her amendment would have spent more money than it generated by converting savings that accrue over 10 years into discretionary expenditures to be spent in a single year, 2005. Senator Murray's amendment would also have jeopardized student benefits nationwide by preventing nonprofit lenders, which are required to pour any extra Federal funds they receive back into the student loan program, from legitimately receiving the guarantee. In other words, her amendment would have led to increased interest rates and origination fees for student borrowers, and the elimination of loan forgiveness programs for nurses, teachers, and public safety officers. The potential damage did not end there. Because Senator Murray's amendment would have disrupted contractual obligations between the Federal Government and lenders and note holders, it could have exposed the Department of Education to costly litigation and risk a court order requiring the payments to be restored. Clearly, efforts to end the loophole have been unproductive or worse thus far. Today, I hope to transform the debate by introducing the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, Senators Bond and Graham, and Representative Boehner in the House. This legislation will close the loophole for one year and direct the resulting savings toward the expansion of teacher loan forgiveness programs for math, science and special education teachers in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students, without cutting student benefits enjoyed by borrowers who receive loans from nonprofit lenders. Specifically, the bill would protect taxpayers by shutting down the loophole in 2005 in a way that immediately halts the high subsidies for refunding, transfers of loans from tax-exempt to taxable bonds and other related transactions. It puts lenders and note holders on notice that Congress will permanently and quickly phase out all other aspects of the 9.5 percent guarantee without putting the federal government in jeopardy of costly litigation. The bill protects student benefits provided by non-profit lenders, including 0 percent interest rate student loans for on-time completion, lower interest rates for certain students and loan forgiveness for teachers, nurses and public safety personnel. The bill invests the related savings to more than triple teacher loan forgiveness to $17,500 for teachers of math, science, and special education--disciplines where there are widespread shortages, particularly in the inner city and rural communities--who teach in high-need schools districts for five years, and who meet the No Child Left Behind definition of a highly qualified teacher. Such loan forgiveness provides an important recruiting tool for local districts to fill teacher shortages, and rewards teachers who teach disadvantaged children and children with disabilities, while preparing the students in the areas of math and science that are so critical to our security and prosperity as a nation. The President recently sent us a letter reiterating his desire that Congress act quickly to enact legislation to close the loophole. I urge my colleagues who are serious about ending this loophole to join me in supporting the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, so that we can send it to the President's desk without delay, and send our dollars where they belong--benefiting students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in recent days, much ink has been spilled and much rhetoric bandied about on the subject of the 8.5 percent interest rate on student loans the Federal Government guarantees to a handful of lenders. We all agree that this loophole, which results in windfall profits to some lenders and banks, should be ended. Only recently have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even acknowledged that this was a problem. It should be noted, that Democrats not only created and protected this flawed policy during the Clinton administration they failed to correct the problem when they were in the majority. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to ending the exploitation of the 9.5 percent interest rate guarantee. The President submitted a budget in February that closed the loophole. House Republicans introduced a higher education bill in May that also would close the loophole. But Democrats showed no interest in moving either of those pieces of legislation. Instead, they have recently offered a series of misguided, ineffectual attempts to close the loophole. The Kildee amendment that passed the House did not close the loophole--a fact even Senate Democrats acknowledge. That amendment prohibited discretionary funds from being used to administer the 9.5 percent payments or for the payments themselves. The fact that such payments are made with mandatory funds under the Higher Education Act renders the amendment powerless. Similarly, Senator Murray's amendment that was rejected at the Labor- HHS-Education markup failed to close the loophole for several reasons. Her amendment would have allowed lenders to transfer loans within their portfolio to continue to receive the 9.5 percent guarantee, a practice explicitly criticized in the GAO report on this issue. Worse, her amendment would have spent more money than it generated by converting savings that accrue over 10 years into discretionary expenditures to be spent in a single year, 2005. Senator Murray's amendment would also have jeopardized student benefits nationwide by preventing nonprofit lenders, which are required to pour any extra Federal funds they receive back into the student loan program, from legitimately receiving the guarantee. In other words, her amendment would have led to increased interest rates and origination fees for student borrowers, and the elimination of loan forgiveness programs for nurses, teachers, and public safety officers. The potential damage did not end there. Because Senator Murray's amendment would have disrupted contractual obligations between the Federal Government and lenders and note holders, it could have exposed the Department of Education to costly litigation and risk a court order requiring the payments to be restored. Clearly, efforts to end the loophole have been unproductive or worse thus far. Today, I hope to transform the debate by introducing the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, Senators Bond and Graham, and Representative Boehner in the House. This legislation will close the loophole for one year and direct the resulting savings toward the expansion of teacher loan forgiveness programs for math, science and special education teachers in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students, without cutting student benefits enjoyed by borrowers who receive loans from nonprofit lenders. Specifically, the bill would protect taxpayers by shutting down the loophole in 2005 in a way that immediately halts the high subsidies for refunding, transfers of loans from tax-exempt to taxable bonds and other related transactions. It puts lenders and note holders on notice that Congress will permanently and quickly phase out all other aspects of the 9.5 percent guarantee without putting the federal government in jeopardy of costly litigation. The bill protects student benefits provided by non-profit lenders, including 0 percent interest rate student loans for on-time completion, lower interest rates for certain students and loan forgiveness for teachers, nurses and public safety personnel. The bill invests the related savings to more than triple teacher loan forgiveness to $17,500 for teachers of math, science, and special education--disciplines where there are widespread shortages, particularly in the inner city and rural communities--who teach in high-need schools districts for five years, and who meet the No Child Left Behind definition of a highly qualified teacher. Such loan forgiveness provides an important recruiting tool for local districts to fill teacher shortages, and rewards teachers who teach disadvantaged children and children with disabilities, while preparing the students in the areas of math and science that are so critical to our security and prosperity as a nation. The President recently sent us a letter reiterating his desire that Congress act quickly to enact legislation to close the loophole. I urge my colleagues who are serious about ending this loophole to join me in supporting the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, so that we can send it to the President's desk without delay, and send our dollars where they belong--benefiting students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought to light another example of how outdated and burdensome government policies can punish generous employers. Employers that continue to pay their employees now on active duty in the uniformed services are experiencing tax and pension difficulties that are discouraging this pro-worker, patriotic gesture. Apparently, when it comes to companies showing their respect for their employees called to serve, there is special meaning to the old cliche ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' The National Committee for Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve, a nationwide association, reports that over 2,500 employers have signed a pledge of support and have gone above and beyond the requirements of the law in support of their National Guard and Reserve employees. This includes many of our Nation's largest and most reputable corporations, including 3M, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Liberty Mutual and many others. These commendable companies provide reservist employees who are on active duty with ``differential pay'' that makes up the difference between their military stipend and civilian salary. Not just national companies provide special pay to our men and women who are called to serve overseas. In New Hampshire, some of the most remarkable stories of corporate patriotism can be found. BAE Systems of Nashua provides differential pay to their 25 called-up employees and continuing access to benefits to family members. The company even provides a stipend to make up the lost pay of active duty spouses of company employees when the spouse's employer is not able to provide differential pay. Consider also the account of Mr. Marian Noronha, Chairman and Founder of Turbocam, a manufacturer based in Dover, New Hampshire. An immigrant from India, Mr. Noronha has not only provided his employees with differential pay and continued family health benefits, but has also extended to each of his activated employees a $10,000 line of credit. His active duty reservist and Guard employees have used this money to, among other things, purchase personal computers so their families can communicate with them while they are overseas. Several other New Hampshire private-sector companies, including Hitchiner Manufacturing Company in Milford, have exemplary records when it comes to dealing with reservist employees. Also, New Hampshire's Governor Benson by Executive Order has extended differential pay for up to 18 months to State employees who have been called to active duty. Under current law, employers of reservists and guardsmen called up for active duty are required to treat them as if they are on a leave of absence under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The Act does not require employers to pay reservists who are on active duty. But as I have pointed out, many employers pay the reservists the difference between their military stipends and their regular salaries. Some employers provide this ``differential pay'' for up to three years. For employee convenience, many of these companies also allow deductions from the differential payment for contributions to their 401(k) retirement plans. The conflict arises, however, because a 1969 IRS Revenue Ruling considers the employment relationship terminated when active duty begins. This ruling prevents employers from treating the differential pay as wages for income tax purposes, resulting in unexpected tax bills at the end of the year for these military personnel. Further, the contributions made to the worker's retirement account potentially invalidate, disqualify, the employer's entire retirement plan which could make all amounts immediately taxable to plan participants and the employer. The Uniformed Services Differential Pay Protection Act that I am introducing today clarifies that differential wage payments are to be treated as wages to current employees for income tax purposes and that retirement plan contributions are permissible. Differential wage payments would be treated as wages for income tax withholding purposes and reported on the worker's W-2 form. This means that active duty personnel will not be hit with end-of-the-year tax bills. No New Taxes: The legislation does not change present law, and deferential wage payments will not be subject to Social Security and unemployment compensation taxes. Definition: ``Differential wage payments'' are defined to mean any payment which: (1) is made by an employer to an individual while he or she is on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, and (2) represents all or a portion of the wages the individual would have received from the employer if he or she were performing service for the employer. An individual receiving differential wage payments would continue to be treated as an employee for purposes of the rules applicable to qualified retirement plans, removing the threat that contributions on his or her behalf would invalidate the employer's entire plan. Distributions Protected: Clarifying language is included to ensure that individuals would continue to be permitted to take distributions from their accounts when they leave their jobs for active duty. Thus, the right to receive distributions will be preserved even though individuals are treated as current employees for contribution purposes. The bill includes a prohibition on making elective deferrals or employee contributions for six months after receiving a distribution. Satisfying Nondiscrimination Rules: In order to avoid disruptions in retirement savings plans and to remove disincentives, employers could disregard contributions to retirement savings accounts based on differential wage payments for nondiscrimination testing purposes, provided that such payments are available to all mobilized employees on reasonably equivalent terms. In summary, the Uniformed Services Differential Pay Protection Act upholds the principle that employers should not be penalized for their generosity towards our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, those of us who listened to Prime Minister Allawi today could not help being overwhelmingly impressed by the courage and the strength of this individual, as he outlined the hopes and dreams of his nation, which he is leading as an interim Prime Minister, and which nation is obviously going through tremendous strain and stress. I heard the Senator from New Jersey just recently on the floor. I hope the Senator from New Jersey listened to Prime Minister Allawi, but maybe he had not, because much of what the Senator from New Jersey was saying about Iraq was starkly different than what Prime Minister Allawi said. The points the Prime Minister made which I thought were so telling were, first, that the people of Iraq do want independence and they do want liberty and they do want freedom, that they will hold elections, and that they have overcome great odds, 30 years of despotism of the most horrifying kind--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of their citizenry being savagely treated and killed by Saddam Hussein. They have come through that. They have moved toward democracy, and they intend to hold elections in January. That is a statement of extraordinary strength. Secondly, he made the point, which I think is a telling and appropriate point, that Iraq has become the frontline of the fight against terrorists. The way he phrased it is: It is the place where the forces of hope are fighting the forces of fear. There can be no question about that. He made the third point, which I believe is critical: That to pursue a course of defeatism in Iraq will lead to an emboldening attitude amongst terrorists throughout the world and will cause us to face many more years of fierce, intense, and brutal attacks from terrorists, which might otherwise be undermined to some degree, hopefully, if we are able to set up a functioning free state of Iraq where liberty rules, where women have rights, where the strength of law exists. That sort of course is what we are on and what we should pursue there. The personal courage of this individual cannot be understated. There can be no question but that the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, because he speaks for freedom and he speaks for democracy, is the No. 1 target of the terrorists within his nation, of which there are, obviously, a fair number functioning. But the point he makes is that they represent the distinct minority of his people, and to a large extent they come from outside his nation, and the hangover from the Baathist Party which ran such a despot government which was so authoritarian and so destructive to human life and freedom, and that the vast majority of the Iraqi citizens seek freedom and seek liberty, and that right now, today, significant progress has been made. He made the point that 15 of the 18 provinces could today hold an election and will hold an election in January, obviously--a huge stride forward. I was also interested to see the response of the candidate for President from the other side of the aisle, Senator Kerry, to the statements by Prime Minister Allawi. When he was specifically asked how he reacted, he said: The President is saying one thing and being contradicted by the Prime Minister. Then he went on to say that things are disastrous in Iraq. He had said earlier this week that Iraq is in chaos and that actually Saddam Hussein's administration was better than the chaos. I am paraphrasing him here, but essentially that was the purpose of his statement, that the way Saddam Hussein was replaced, the chaos which has succeeded him is worse than Saddam Hussein--a statement which I think and I hope he regrets making, and certainly which is, according to the Prime Minister, not credible because, as the Prime Minister pointed out today, the people of Iraq are seeking and pursuing freedom and moving toward elections. And they have a government that has been formed through a constitutional process. So it is really not the President and the Prime Minister who are speaking in opposite terms; it is Senator Kerry and the Prime Minister who are speaking in opposite terms. They, obviously, have significantly different views of what is happening in Iraq. The Prime Minister of Iraq maybe does not know as much about Iraq as the Senator from Massachusetts. But if he does know as much about Iraq as the Senator from Massachusetts, and I suspect he does, his view of Iraq is starkly different than basically the attitude of defeatism which is being pursued or presented by the Senator from Massachusetts. It is also ironic that in his response at this press conference to what Mr. Allawi said, he basically said Mr. Allawi was wrong, that the ``reports are pretty devastating,'' is the term Senator Kerry used, that ``we are losing the peace,'' is a term Senator Kerry used, that ``we are not getting the reconstruction aid out,'' and that ``we are not training the Iraqi personnel to defend themselves.'' Prime Minister Allawi disagrees with him on all those points. He thinks we are moving toward a policy of peace that is going to lead toward freedom for his people. He recognizes we are in a difficult time, and he said that very openly, and that there are those in his nation who, unfortunately, will use the horrific and barbarous tactics of beheading and car bombing and cowardly attacks on children and women as a way to try to disrupt the movement toward freedom. He recognizes that, but he also says progress is being made, dramatic progress. In fact, as is pointed out today, 15 of 18 provinces could hold an election today. That is progress toward peace, which Senator Kerry says does not exist there. He says that the reconstruction money is not going out. That is not what Prime Minister Allawi said. Prime Minister Allawi went through a litany, a long list of schools that have opened, hospitals that have opened, books that have been supplied, businesses that have begun as a result of reconstruction aid. More is on the way, and it is in the pipeline. He talked about the excitement, really, of his nation coming back to being a nation of commerce. When Senator Kerry says the troops are not being trained--and Senator Kerry mocked in this press conference Secretary Rumsfeld who got numbers incorrect on the issue of how many troops were being trained. It was a mistake, no question about it. The Secretary admitted to that. But as far as Senator Kerry was concerned that mistake, once admitted to, was still a mistake that deserved to be mocked. But the mistake Senator Kerry makes is that he is saying the number is 5,000--5,000 troops. That is not what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said 100,000, and growing, and that people are seeking to participate in the security forces of Iraq. Furthermore, what he said was he did not want any more American troops, that he recognizes the responsibility of protecting Iraq should fall and will fall to a free Iraq Government and Iraqi security forces which answers to that government. He expects them to be able to accomplish that. He made it very clear that Senator Kerry may have a different view but that he thinks, from his experience in Iraq, that is not the case. If you listened to Senator Kerry in his press conference, in response to Prime Minister Allawi's statement to the joint meeting of Congress, you almost sense that he hopes things are not going well. He, of course, gives the token statements: Oh, I really do want peace there. I really do want to win there. But with every token statement, there is a followup statement of how disastrous things are, how much chaos there is--a follow-on to his statement that replacing Saddam Hussein was a mistake because chaos followed. It is an attitude which cannot possibly assist the Iraqi people as they reach for freedom, as they reach for liberty, to have a major candidate running for President of the United States basically saying they will not succeed and that it is time to take drastically different action. It is an attitude which I also suspect must have some impact on our own troops there who are looking for consistency from our leaders in their support for their efforts in that very difficult situation. In this press conference, Senator Kerry went on to say that he has told the President, and he used the words: I have stood in Fulton, MO, and I gave the President advice about what he needed to do, and he did not take it. I stood at Georgetown University a year and a half ago and I gave the President advice about what he needed to do, and he did not take it. I stood on the floor of the Senate and I gave the President advice about what he needed to do, and he did not take it. I stood up last week in New York City and gave the President advice, and he did not take it. The problem is, of course, he kept changing his advice. In every one of those speeches, the proposals he laid out as to what we should do in Iraq were different. He went from being for the war to being against the war. He went from being for giving the President authority to move forward to saying the President moved forward inappropriately with the authority. He went from saying that Saddam Hussein should absolutely be removed--and in his words; I paraphrase again but fairly accurately-- that anybody who did not understand the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein should not be elected President because they did not understand the significance and the importance of removing Saddam Hussein and how significant that was--he went from that position to saying Saddam Hussein should not have been removed because it would create chaos. He may have given the President advice. He has advice every week. The fact is, there have been such different positions in all these periods when he gave advice that we would have looked like a windmill or like a weather vane on top of a barn in the middle of a hurricane. Had we been following that advice, we would have been shifting positions so often. The point is the President has said: We will stay with the Iraqi people as they seek peace and freedom. And if we are successful in creating a democracy which functions in Iraq--and Prime Minister Allawi made clear that is exactly what they intend to do, and they are well down the road toward accomplishing that, with 15 of 18 provinces being ready for elections now, and they intend to pursue elections in January--where liberty reigns and where law reigns and where women have rights, we will fundamentally undermine the capacity of fundamentally Islamic movements, the terrorist groups of this world, to recruit within the Muslim world, because the Muslim people will understand that freedom and democracy and rights and women having rights works to the benefit of their society and gives them a better life. The Senator from Massachusetts has been quick to run down the statements made by Prime Minister Allawi. That is unfortunate. When Prime Minister Allawi said the only thing that could harm them would be forces of defeatism, he was speaking for his people. They want hope. They want the opportunity to succeed. And they need our support to accomplish that. I have watched the evolution or the mutation or the development of Senator Kerry's position relative to Iraq. He spent a lot of time in New Hampshire campaigning in the primary. We had a chance to observe it there. At that time he was quite aggressively supportive of pursuing the efforts in Iraq. He was confronting, of course, an individual who took a much different position, Howard Dean, who said we should not be there. We should get out of there and peace at any price. After that, he moved back to more of an attitude: We are making mistakes, and we should not be there under the context that we are there. Then he moved to Saddam Hussein should have survived. It is better than the chaos that exists there today. And then he has moved to, we have made so many mistakes, I disagree absolutely with everything this administration has done relative to Iraq, which leaves the alternative: what would he do. Obviously, he would not have put Iraq on a course to peace, on the course to independence, on the course to freedom, on the course to democracy, on the course to liberty, on the course to giving women rights they didn't have before. That is what the President has pursued. He would have abandoned--and it appears he would still--Prime Minister Allawi who has come forward so courageously and has stated so distinctly the basic essence of what this war is about, which is that it is about people seeking freedom. He quoted Prime Minister Blair and he said: Prime Minister Blair said that this was a battle between people who are seeking freedom and those who wish to overwhelm freedom and that the basic impetus of all people is to want to be free; it doesn't matter whether they are Christian or Muslim, people want to be free. Prime Minister Allawi is trying to accomplish that for his people, with his people in Iraq. Yet we have a press conference here by the leading candidate of the other party, Senator Kerry, who basically contradicts all of what the Prime Minister has said, both as to the substance of what is happening on the ground and as to the purposes of what his goals are. That is terribly unfortunate. It is a fundamental shift in where Senator Kerry was when he was campaigning in New Hampshire, at least. It is almost as if he has decided to step into the shoes of Howard Dean and pursue that course as the new policy of the Democratic Party in this Presidential campaign. That is unfortunate because Howard Dean, as decent and as honorable a person as he is--and I had the great privilege to serve with him as Governor; we became Governors of neighboring States about the same time; we had many very good experiences--the fact is, Governor Dean's policies were the wrong policies. And they were rejected by the party in the nominating process. It is unfortunate that Senator Kerry has sort of morphed into that position as he has evolved in this campaign. This is a period of considerable need for consistency and determination on the part of our Nation, if we are to be successful in supporting a heroic and strong effort on the part of Prime Minister Allawi and his nation to obtain freedom and democracy and the rule of law which comes with it. I certainly hope we will not be abandoning that cause. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on passage of H.R. 4755, the legislative branch appropriations bill, occur at 4:30 p.m.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, second, as stated in the letter from the five former FDA chief counsels, the FDA has been filing amicus briefs for such purposes since long before Mr. Troy's tenure. Mr. Troy is responsible for safeguarding the FDA's ability to carry out the responsibilities Congress has given the Agency, and his interest in those cases has been to preserve the FDA's authority and to safeguard the Agency's primary jurisdiction. Finally, if Mr. Troy's previous work for a client--in this case Pfizer--automatically precluded him from representing a federal agency in any matter affecting that client, such a policy would not only discourage, but make it extremely difficult for any private sector attorney from taking a job in government. Additionally, I know from personal experience that Mr. Troy has the character and the integrity to recuse himself from a matter when appropriate. On at least one occasion in which my office was required to interact with the FDA, Mr. Troy recused himself from involvement in the matter, citing his interest in complying strictly with FDA rules. Mr. Troy's actions are neither inappropriate nor unprecedented. Rather, these are examples of Mr. Troy doing his job and enforcing the law. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these facts before supporting any provision, such as this one, that would undermine the FDA's ability to protect the public health and patient access to safe and effective life-saving therapies.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistant Democratic leader's constructive suggestion in an attempt to move this process along relative to offering the House amendment. However, there really is no reason we should just take the House language as it stands. The two bodies have both propounded bills which are substantive. This proposal which I have put forward requires only 2 hours in order to put it across the floor and we can go into conference. As a result of that, we can meet in conference and, obviously, reach a conclusion--I think, fairly quickly--which will make a very good bill. There is no reason in this instance we should not have a very good bill. I do regret we cannot move forward at this time on this bill in the regular course under regular order as it would be presented in the unanimous consent request which I presented. I thank the Senator from Nevada. As in the past, his courtesy is always very generous. He is obviously a very effective spokesman for the Democratic membership of this Senate, and I admire his work. I yield the floor. United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I simply note that I don't know whether we took the 5-foot jump shot, but I state right now, if we take up this bill, it will be a 2-foot slam dunk. That is all we need to do. This bill came out of our committee. It came out of a Senate committee unanimously. It is reasonable that the Senate should insist on hearing its bill on the floor and that the Senate should pass its bill on the floor. That is all we are asking. That is why I must object to the Senator's proposal to modify my amendment. I would presume that the Senator, having come from the House and knowing the vagaries of the House--which is why he came to the Senate because he so much more appreciated the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the Senate--would want to hear the Senate bill on the floor rather than to simply accept the House bill in its present form. Therefore, although I greatly admire the Senator's attempt to be constructive in his initiative, because it is a constructive step, I am forced to object. I believe we should take up the Senate bill under the context of what we have proposed, which would be a bill that was unanimously approved by a Senate committee of jurisdiction subject to the amendment process which is outlined. In fact, should the Senator from Massachusetts agree with the Senator from Nevada that the House bill is better than the Senate bill--which I would find interesting since he supported the Senate bill as it came out of committee--he may offer that as his germane amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the issues which are pending before this Senate which are not being considered because the other side of the aisle refuses to take them up. I am going to stay on narrow issues which have not received a lot of public attention. Obviously, there have been a lot of issues such as medical malpractice, such as the just recent decision not to go forward with the debate on the constitutional amendment, that have received a fair amount of visibility as a result of the obstruction coming from the other side and the other side deciding it does not wish to address those issues, which are quite often critical to the American people. There have, however, been four items reported out of the committee which I have the good fortune to chair, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. It is a committee of fairly disparate views--to be kind. I chair it. I have as my honorable colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. To say that we have a philosophical identity would be an imaginative view. As we go down the membership of the committee, the differences of opinions relative to philosophy of governance are rather significant. We have some of the best Members of the Senate--obviously, there are many good Members there--but we have some of our most aggressive and constructive Members serving as members of the committee, and I enjoy that. It makes the committee an interesting and challenging place in which to work. But the views are different within that committee, the views of how we approach governance. Therefore, when we as a committee reach an agreement on something, it means it is a pretty good work product. It means there has been a consensus reached the way consensus should be reached within the Congress, which is that the different parties have sat down, they have recognized the problem, they have brought to bear their philosophies on that problem, their ideologies on that problem, and the practical nature of the way that you can resolve that problem, and they have reached what is, in most instances, a pretty good, commonsense solution to how we should move forward. In four areas right now pending before this Senate, the committee has reached consensus. It has had a unanimous vote on a piece of legislation. Some of those have even come to the floor. We have had a unanimous vote, for example, on how we should reauthorize and restructure the special education laws of this country. It was called IDEA. It is a very complex issue, a very important issue, especially to children or parents of children who have special needs. I can't think of anything more important than a parent who has a child who has some unfortunate issues relative to their ability to learn. For that parent and for that child, the most important event of each day is going to school and making sure that child's schooling experience is a positive one, and that it moves that child forward as that child tries to deal with the issues of learning and especially issues of life. So the special education bill is a critical piece of legislation. It went through our committee with unanimous support. It came to the floor of the Senate. It was debated, debated aggressively, and passed. But it simply sits. A second bill has been stopped because the other side of the aisle has refused to allow us to appoint conferees. The second bill which falls in the same area is the Work Investment Act. This is basically a bill which came out of our committee again in a unanimous way, worked on primarily by Senator Enzi of Wyoming. He did a great job on it and worked across the aisle with a number of Senators. As a result, it was unanimously passed out of our committee, came across the floor of the Senate, and again this bill has been stopped because conferees have not been appointed. Then reported out of our committee as another very important piece of legislation relative to education is the Head Start bill. Head Start affects a lot of kids in this country today. It gives low-income kids in our country a nurturing environment during those very formative years and allows them an environment where they get decent health care and they get decent custodial care during the daytime. They have daycare services, and it teaches them socialization patterns. We have taken that concept and we have added to it an education, academic component so the kids going to Head Start will now also come out of the Head Start program after they are 3 or 4 years old moving into kindergarten and preschool. They will hopefully be up to par with their peers academically so they know their alphabet and are ready to learn. This is an important initiative. This bill is structured to put that new component into Head Start and make that part of that initiative. Again, this bill came out of our committee unanimously. It came to the Senate and has stopped--stopped. We negotiated to try to get it brought up in reasonable ways, one of which would allow us to give both sides amendments if they wanted them and then move it to conference. No, it hasn't happened, so that bill has been stopped. The fourth bill which I want to talk about is the Patients Savings Act. We know that there is a problem, unfortunately, in our health care community with mistakes--unintended mistakes, but mistakes--that end up causing people harm because health care is delivered inappropriately or incorrectly to people. In fact, the estimate is that literally tens of thousands--potentially more than 100,000 people--die each year as a result of that type of situation. One of the ways to address that is to allow the medical community to communicate with each other as to what these problems are so they can learn from each other and so we can set up a regime where if somebody has a system in place which avoids a problem, a mistake or an error occurring, they can share that with other medical providers. If there is, on the other hand, a mistake that has occurred or error that has occurred, the information relative to the investigation of that and how it can be mitigated can be shared with other providers. This sharing of information is absolutely critical if we are going to get control over the issue of how we deliver better health care in this country. Unfortunately, there are antitrust and other laws which limit the ability of that information to be shared. So we have set up this Patients Safety Act which is essentially an attempt to give patients more protection when they are in a health care facility. This bill again was worked on effectively and aggressively by both sides of the aisle. The thoughts and initiatives were brought together. It was passed out of committee unanimously. This is a very important piece of legislation. We need to get this piece of legislation in place. Unlike the other pieces of legislation which I mentioned--the WIA bill, the IDEA bill, and the Head Start bill, which already have programs up and running, which are effective, but can be improved significantly by those bills--in the case of patient safety there is nothing out there today which allows these medical providers to take advantage of what this law is going to bring to bear and thus reduce injuries to people. Literally, the longer this bill is kept from passing and becoming law, the more people are harmed. There is a direct numerical relationship, direct formula, direct factor relationship where if this bill were passed today, fewer people would be harmed tomorrow. It is that simple. This bill needs to be taken up. It needs to be passed. Yet although it came out of committee unanimously, it has disappeared into the opposition on the other side of the aisle which says we are not going to listen to that. We are not going to bring that up. If you want to pass something such as that, you will have to throw on everything else and the kitchen sink that has no relationship to it. You are not going to be allowed to pass a bill that was unanimously passed out of committee. A couple of days ago, I was reading a pamphlet which was sent to me by an ever inquisitive and creative and very unique individual in his energy level, which is much higher than mine, the President pro tempore, Senator Stevens. He had go to some lecture or some meeting where they had been talking about quantum physics. He sent us a booklet on quantum physics. I have never understood even the term ``quantum physics.'' I opened it to the first page and read the first paragraph. I quickly got lost in the theory. But the basic statement about quantum physics was that the universe is 96 percent anti-matter. Maybe it is 98 percent. The universe--and this is a shock. This is a new theory. The universe is 98 percent anti-matter or, in other words, a black hole. I have to tell you, under the Democratic leadership in this Senate, the Senate is becoming 98 percent anti-matter, or a black hole. When bills come out of committee, they are unanimously passed by a committee which has such a diverse viewpoint philosophically, ideologically, and regionally as our committee has, when those bills come out of that committee unanimously and will significantly improve kids going to elementary school, getting ready for school, kids in their early years, kids who have problems and who have significant issues, special-needs kids going through their school systems, people who need to be retrained in a workplace that requires constant retraining or, as in the case of the patients safety bill, will actually save lives because it will allow us to do a better job of delivering medical care--when they come out of committee and are unanimously supported by the full committee, they are unanimously supported to the extent they went through the subcommittee, to the full committee, unanimously supported, come to the floor of the Senate, and the other side of the aisle says that bill is going to be assigned to the black hole. That bill disappears into what you might call ``Daschle Land'' where nothing comes back. Send the bill out and it is gone. Where did it go? I do not know. It went to ``Daschle Land.'' This can't continue. These pieces of legislation have to be taken up. We should consider them. We should pass them. After all, if they have unanimous approval from the committee of jurisdiction when that committee has some divergent views on it, they have to be pretty well worked out as a piece of law. I have asked that we get the IDEA bill and the special education bill to conference. It hasn't happened. I have asked that we be able to bring up the Head Start bill. It hasn't happened. I have asked that we be able to go to the WIA bill and send it to conference. It hasn't happened. Today I would like to ask that we be able to bring up the Patients Safety Act and pass it out of this Senate under a reasonable plan, under a reasonable set of options where we will essentially say people get a right to amend it on the substance of the bill and then move to conference. I would like to present the following unanimous consent request relative to the Patients Safety Act. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 663 I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 663, the Patients Safety bill, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; provided that upon reporting of the bill Senator Gregg be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk; provided further that there be one first-degree germane amendment in order to be offered by Senator Kennedy or his designee and that that amendment be subject to a germane second-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Gregg or his designee, with no further amendments in order. I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 2 hours for debate, and following the use or yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relationship to the second-degree amendment, to be immediately followed by a vote on or in relationship to the first-degree amendment, as amended; provided that following disposition of the amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of H.R. 633, as amended, with no intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following passage, the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate with a ratio of 5 to 4.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of a remarkable organization in Nashua, NH. For the past 10 years, Marguerite's Place, Inc. has provided safe, affordable housing for women and their children. More importantly, it has been a critical stop on the road for those families who are fighting to rebuild their lives and brighten their futures. Although there are many words which can be used to describe Marguerite's Place, the one which best captures why it is so special is ``Hope''. During my first visit in 1997 and on countless others I have made since then, I have been amazed by the overwhelming positive spirit filling every room there. The women who have come to Marguerite's Place have been through very difficult situations and yet they are actively reaching to retake control of their world. In almost all cases, they succeed. Of course, the reason for this impressive track record is the staff and supporters do not let them fail. Marguerite's Place gives these women a warm and safe home, the needed assistance in finishing school or launching a career and an energetic daycare center for their children. Most of all, these women learn they have unique abilities and skills which will take them far. In short, they are given the hope they need to take back their lives. One of my favorite spots at Marguerite's Place is the child care center. Many of the children there have probably been homeless for a time or have experienced situations no child should be forced to endure. But, watching them playing together in the center and interacting with each other and their teachers, it is easy to sense they have found a home. It is here where one can witness the fundamental impact Marguerite's Place is having on the greater Nashua community. Through their programs and support, the staff here pass on to our youngest generation of citizens the feeling they too have a wide open future. The leader of Marguerite's Place, and its heart and soul, is Sister Sharon Walsh. Her firm commitment to insuring the residents meet the expectations set for them is near legendary. Yet, she is profoundly upbeat in her vision that people can change for the better. She is continually seeking ways they can be part of the American Dream. It is this combination of optimism and determination that make Sister Sharon so inspirational. In turn, her enthusiasm is what makes Marguerite's Place so unique and so effective. Of course, Sister Sharon is modest and would deflect much of the praise and credit to her staff for the successes they have achieved. In my conversations with them, I have learned they share Sister Sharon's vision and skill in bringing out the best in people. Sister Elaine Fahey, for example, runs the daycare center. It is obvious the children love her and view her as a role model. So, as Marguerite's Place celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, I want to thank Sister Sharon, her staff and all the supporters for the remarkable work they have done to restore dignity and self-esteem to those who may have lost it. They have made Nashua a better place to live. I am proud to be a supporter of Marguerite's Place and am happy to extend my deepest wishes for continued success.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and other members, in introducing the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004. For the past 6 months we have been working in a bipartisan fashion on the reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act. Our proposed legislation is designed to remove barriers that people with disabilities encounter when attempting to access and purchase assistive technology. Working with the disability, business, and research and development communities, the Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce, and the Small Business Administration, we have completely rewritten the Act to accomplish this goal. More specifically, our efforts focused on three fundamental changes: improving access by reducing bureaucracy; fostering private/public sector relationships; and stabilizing the State projects funding stream In a March 1993 report to the President and the Congress on the ``Study on the Financing of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Individuals with Disabilities,'' the National Council on Disability heard repeatedly from witnesses at public forums about the abandonment of equipment by persons with disabilities who had no opportunity prior to purchase to try it out or see it demonstrated. Current law authorizes State projects to conduct system change activities and provide information and referral services to people with disabilities and their families. Although these are necessary and important duties, they do not immediately impact and help a person with a disability obtain assistive technology that he or she may need today. This bill modifies the current list of authorized activities by expanding the authority of the State assistive technology act programs to increase the ability of persons with disabilities to experience or obtain assistive technology. Our bill, written by members of the Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, provides the State projects with a tangible set of mandatory activities, yet at the same time provides State flexibility to address emerging State needs. Therefore, the new functions require States to provide citizens with access to device loan, reutilization, and financing programs, and equipment demonstration centers directly by developing such programs, or partnering with another entity in the State currently conducting these programs. The purpose of these programs is to provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to receive proper assessments and evaluations for assistive technology, test and obtain information about various devices, borrow or rent devices and equipment before it is purchased, and be able to access low interest loans to purchase needed technology. Each of these new requirements will help make the most of limited public resources in an environment that emphasizes consumer choice in and control of assistive technology services and funding. Further, they demonstrate the benefits and costs of assistive technology. Additionally, our bill intensifies outreach efforts to employers, providers of employment and adult services, school systems, and health care providers that have direct contact with persons with disabilities to inform them about the beneficial aspects of assistive technology. Finally, we authorize States to create an advisory board to provide enhanced flexibility, guide the actions of the State programs and establish State priorities to meet the specific assistive technology needs of State residents. The Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions learned through several public forums held this and last year that employers are frequently confused by the vast array of assistive technology devices available to employees, the costs associated with purchasing assistive technology, and how or where to purchase assistive technology to meet the needs of potential employees or employees acquiring disabilities due to age, accidents and other causes. However, various studies paint a different picture. The Office of Disability Employment Policy of the Department of Labor funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a free consulting service designed to increase the employability of people with disabilities. According to an ongoing JAN evaluation, 71 percent of the businesses that used JAN for assistance on providing specific accommodation information for employees with disabilities found that the accommodation that the employee needed cost between $0.00 and $500.00. This sent up a red flag, indicating that there is a disconnect or gap between the knowledge base as it currently exists and how that information reaches not only employers, but schools, school districts, hospitals and other entities. I imagine at schools and school officials in Berlin, NH, Clearmont, WY, Tribune, KS, or any other rural community would have a difficult time determining the assistive technology needs of a student with a disability without some type of assistance. I am also sure that the same is true for small businesses. The Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), funded by the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the Department of Education, are regional Centers that provide training, information, and technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to businesses, consumers, schools, and State and local governments. The DBTACs do wonderful work; however, a small business owner usually does not know where to go or where to send an employee if he or she needs an assessment or knowledge of various assistive devices so the small business can provide the necessary and appropriate assistive device. According to statistics from the Small Business Administration office of Advocacy, small businesses pay 44.3 percent of the total private payroll in the United States, and have generated anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the past decade. As a current high school student with disabilities graduates and looks for a job, there is a good chance that this young person will work for a small business. That being said, if the student has accommodation or technology needs, will the business know where to go for assistance? There are quite a few State Assistive Technology Act projects that are currently conducting outreach and public awareness activities, providing technical assistance to the business community, but it is not occurring unilaterally across the Nation. While current law authorizes such activities it does not specifically state that public awareness activities should be focused on the business community. This bill aggressively engages businesses, especially small businesses, by providing them with greater access to technical assistance so that they can accommodate employees with disabilities. Additionally, in an effort to improve access to assistive technology and to lower costs, the bill enhances competition and forges incentives for researchers and developers. The bill accomplishes these goals by improving the utilization of federal dollars and collaborative efforts between the agency administering the Assistive Technology Act projects and other Federal departments and initiatives, such as the Small Business Administration's (SBA) and Department of Labor's (DOL) interagency initiative to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities in small businesses. This bill also strengthens relationships between federally funded programs, such as the Assistive Technology Act projects, with private sector employers and researchers, by directing the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Education to make grants available to for-profit and non-profit entities to enhance public/private partnerships. These grant opportunities include creating grants to support the development of public service announcements, which can be modified for regional use, to reach out to small businesses, the aging population, and people with disabilities about the benefits of assistive technology. Grants can also fund a technical assistance provider to assist employers in addressing the needs of aging workers that are acquiring disabilities and may need assistive technology to maintain their current level of productivity. When Congress passed the original Assistive Technology Act in 1988, Congressional intent was to provide States with time-limited Federal seed money to assist them in developing and implementing their own assistive technology programs. This Federal-State partnership has provided an important service to individuals with disabilities by strengthening the capacity of each State to assist individuals with disabilities of all ages with their assistive technology needs. However, thousands of people with disabilities could lose access to this infrastructure if the Federal contribution comes to an end. Additionally, the bill drafters have recognized that for-profit and non-profit entities have not put the necessary time and energy into fostering relationships with the State programs, fearing that the Federal contribution would end, and the State programs would no longer exist. Three years ago, with the introduction of the President's New Freedom Initiative in the winter of 2001, the Administration launched new comprehensive programs to tell America that individuals with disabilities are valued citizens. Traditionally, individuals with disabilities have been outcasts of society--seen as burdensome and institutionalized--and have not been permitted to contribute to society or expected to pursue the American Dream that so many of us take for granted. This Administration recognizes and believes in the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society. This belief has been put into action by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, promoting increased access into daily community life, and helping members of this misunderstood and underutilized group of citizens achieve and succeed. Compassionate Conservatism is what I believe our President calls it. As the New Freedom Initiative states, ``Assistive and universally designed technologies can be a powerful tool for millions of Americans with disabilities, dramatically improving one's quality of life and ability to engage in productive work. New technologies are opening opportunities for even those with the most severe disabilities.'' This new-found sense of purpose and urgency, occurring shortly after the Olmstead decision, has re-ignited the interest and support for a Federal-State partnership to provide comprehensive, statewide assistive technology services to individuals with disabilities. Consequently, Congress must stabilize funding for the State programs by supporting State efforts to improve the provision of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. Congress must also ensure that the Federal commitment to independent living, and the full participation of individuals with disabilities in society, guaranteed through the President's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' is upheld. In this instance, that translates into providing States with the necessary funding to maintain the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology- related assistance for individuals with disabilities of all ages. However, the drafters of this legislation also expect States to take ownership of and expand upon the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology-related assistance. Therefore, this bill removes the sunset provision in the 1998 Act and creates a typical reauthorization cycle, while slightly increasing the State minimum allotment to offset some of the costs for the additional requirements. I would like to thank Senator Harkin, and his staff, particularly Mary Giliberti, for their hard work and dedication in putting together a bi-partisan bill that will assist thousands of individuals with disabilities access services and devices that they so desperately need. I would also like to thank Senators Roberts, DeWine, Warner, Ensign, Kennedy, and Reed, and their staff members, Jennifer Swenson, Mary Beth Luna, John (JK) Robinson, Lindsay Lovlien, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Elyse Wasch, and Erica Swanson as they were on board and helped make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. Senator Harkin and I were determined to make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we are confident will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and most importantly by the disability community, providers of disability related services, States, employers and businesses, and the educational community. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and other members, in introducing the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004. For the past 6 months we have been working in a bipartisan fashion on the reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act. Our proposed legislation is designed to remove barriers that people with disabilities encounter when attempting to access and purchase assistive technology. Working with the disability, business, and research and development communities, the Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce, and the Small Business Administration, we have completely rewritten the Act to accomplish this goal. More specifically, our efforts focused on three fundamental changes: improving access by reducing bureaucracy; fostering private/public sector relationships; and stabilizing the State projects funding stream In a March 1993 report to the President and the Congress on the ``Study on the Financing of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Individuals with Disabilities,'' the National Council on Disability heard repeatedly from witnesses at public forums about the abandonment of equipment by persons with disabilities who had no opportunity prior to purchase to try it out or see it demonstrated. Current law authorizes State projects to conduct system change activities and provide information and referral services to people with disabilities and their families. Although these are necessary and important duties, they do not immediately impact and help a person with a disability obtain assistive technology that he or she may need today. This bill modifies the current list of authorized activities by expanding the authority of the State assistive technology act programs to increase the ability of persons with disabilities to experience or obtain assistive technology. Our bill, written by members of the Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, provides the State projects with a tangible set of mandatory activities, yet at the same time provides State flexibility to address emerging State needs. Therefore, the new functions require States to provide citizens with access to device loan, reutilization, and financing programs, and equipment demonstration centers directly by developing such programs, or partnering with another entity in the State currently conducting these programs. The purpose of these programs is to provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to receive proper assessments and evaluations for assistive technology, test and obtain information about various devices, borrow or rent devices and equipment before it is purchased, and be able to access low interest loans to purchase needed technology. Each of these new requirements will help make the most of limited public resources in an environment that emphasizes consumer choice in and control of assistive technology services and funding. Further, they demonstrate the benefits and costs of assistive technology. Additionally, our bill intensifies outreach efforts to employers, providers of employment and adult services, school systems, and health care providers that have direct contact with persons with disabilities to inform them about the beneficial aspects of assistive technology. Finally, we authorize States to create an advisory board to provide enhanced flexibility, guide the actions of the State programs and establish State priorities to meet the specific assistive technology needs of State residents. The Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions learned through several public forums held this and last year that employers are frequently confused by the vast array of assistive technology devices available to employees, the costs associated with purchasing assistive technology, and how or where to purchase assistive technology to meet the needs of potential employees or employees acquiring disabilities due to age, accidents and other causes. However, various studies paint a different picture. The Office of Disability Employment Policy of the Department of Labor funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a free consulting service designed to increase the employability of people with disabilities. According to an ongoing JAN evaluation, 71 percent of the businesses that used JAN for assistance on providing specific accommodation information for employees with disabilities found that the accommodation that the employee needed cost between $0.00 and $500.00. This sent up a red flag, indicating that there is a disconnect or gap between the knowledge base as it currently exists and how that information reaches not only employers, but schools, school districts, hospitals and other entities. I imagine at schools and school officials in Berlin, NH, Clearmont, WY, Tribune, KS, or any other rural community would have a difficult time determining the assistive technology needs of a student with a disability without some type of assistance. I am also sure that the same is true for small businesses. The Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), funded by the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the Department of Education, are regional Centers that provide training, information, and technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to businesses, consumers, schools, and State and local governments. The DBTACs do wonderful work; however, a small business owner usually does not know where to go or where to send an employee if he or she needs an assessment or knowledge of various assistive devices so the small business can provide the necessary and appropriate assistive device. According to statistics from the Small Business Administration office of Advocacy, small businesses pay 44.3 percent of the total private payroll in the United States, and have generated anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the past decade. As a current high school student with disabilities graduates and looks for a job, there is a good chance that this young person will work for a small business. That being said, if the student has accommodation or technology needs, will the business know where to go for assistance? There are quite a few State Assistive Technology Act projects that are currently conducting outreach and public awareness activities, providing technical assistance to the business community, but it is not occurring unilaterally across the Nation. While current law authorizes such activities it does not specifically state that public awareness activities should be focused on the business community. This bill aggressively engages businesses, especially small businesses, by providing them with greater access to technical assistance so that they can accommodate employees with disabilities. Additionally, in an effort to improve access to assistive technology and to lower costs, the bill enhances competition and forges incentives for researchers and developers. The bill accomplishes these goals by improving the utilization of federal dollars and collaborative efforts between the agency administering the Assistive Technology Act projects and other Federal departments and initiatives, such as the Small Business Administration's (SBA) and Department of Labor's (DOL) interagency initiative to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities in small businesses. This bill also strengthens relationships between federally funded programs, such as the Assistive Technology Act projects, with private sector employers and researchers, by directing the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Education to make grants available to for-profit and non-profit entities to enhance public/private partnerships. These grant opportunities include creating grants to support the development of public service announcements, which can be modified for regional use, to reach out to small businesses, the aging population, and people with disabilities about the benefits of assistive technology. Grants can also fund a technical assistance provider to assist employers in addressing the needs of aging workers that are acquiring disabilities and may need assistive technology to maintain their current level of productivity. When Congress passed the original Assistive Technology Act in 1988, Congressional intent was to provide States with time-limited Federal seed money to assist them in developing and implementing their own assistive technology programs. This Federal-State partnership has provided an important service to individuals with disabilities by strengthening the capacity of each State to assist individuals with disabilities of all ages with their assistive technology needs. However, thousands of people with disabilities could lose access to this infrastructure if the Federal contribution comes to an end. Additionally, the bill drafters have recognized that for-profit and non-profit entities have not put the necessary time and energy into fostering relationships with the State programs, fearing that the Federal contribution would end, and the State programs would no longer exist. Three years ago, with the introduction of the President's New Freedom Initiative in the winter of 2001, the Administration launched new comprehensive programs to tell America that individuals with disabilities are valued citizens. Traditionally, individuals with disabilities have been outcasts of society--seen as burdensome and institutionalized--and have not been permitted to contribute to society or expected to pursue the American Dream that so many of us take for granted. This Administration recognizes and believes in the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society. This belief has been put into action by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, promoting increased access into daily community life, and helping members of this misunderstood and underutilized group of citizens achieve and succeed. Compassionate Conservatism is what I believe our President calls it. As the New Freedom Initiative states, ``Assistive and universally designed technologies can be a powerful tool for millions of Americans with disabilities, dramatically improving one's quality of life and ability to engage in productive work. New technologies are opening opportunities for even those with the most severe disabilities.'' This new-found sense of purpose and urgency, occurring shortly after the Olmstead decision, has re-ignited the interest and support for a Federal-State partnership to provide comprehensive, statewide assistive technology services to individuals with disabilities. Consequently, Congress must stabilize funding for the State programs by supporting State efforts to improve the provision of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. Congress must also ensure that the Federal commitment to independent living, and the full participation of individuals with disabilities in society, guaranteed through the President's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' is upheld. In this instance, that translates into providing States with the necessary funding to maintain the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology- related assistance for individuals with disabilities of all ages. However, the drafters of this legislation also expect States to take ownership of and expand upon the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology-related assistance. Therefore, this bill removes the sunset provision in the 1998 Act and creates a typical reauthorization cycle, while slightly increasing the State minimum allotment to offset some of the costs for the additional requirements. I would like to thank Senator Harkin, and his staff, particularly Mary Giliberti, for their hard work and dedication in putting together a bi-partisan bill that will assist thousands of individuals with disabilities access services and devices that they so desperately need. I would also like to thank Senators Roberts, DeWine, Warner, Ensign, Kennedy, and Reed, and their staff members, Jennifer Swenson, Mary Beth Luna, John (JK) Robinson, Lindsay Lovlien, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Elyse Wasch, and Erica Swanson as they were on board and helped make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. Senator Harkin and I were determined to make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we are confident will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and most importantly by the disability community, providers of disability related services, States, employers and businesses, and the educational community. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I agree with Chairman Stevens. We will do our most to support the House language. We are both aware of the significant funding needs the State Department is facing in the construction of a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I hope the Secretary of State will act expeditiously to address this funding need. RAPID equipping force

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Feingold has offered an amendment intended to help military families who have a family member activated in support of a contingency operation. First of all, I make it clear that all of us want to assist families placed in the difficult position of operating with one family member called to duty. That is why the underlying bill contains provisions such as permanently increasing the Family Separation Allowance, FSA, payable to deployed servicemen and women with dependents up to $250 a month. But the proposal made by Senator Feingold to expand the Family Medical Leave Act is not the right approach. I rise to offer an alternative proposal as a second-degree amendment. The amendment I am offering today presents military families a much better method for obtaining the flexibility they may need to prepare for activation and to keep the family running while a family member is called to duty. The Feingold amendment would offer some employees unpaid leave. My amendment will offer paid leave. While the Feingold amendment applies only to those military family members that work for employers with 50 or more employees, and offers no assistance at all to individuals who work for smaller employers, my amendment will apply to all military family employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Feingold amendment will also create uncertainty and animosity in the workplace by giving employees the vaguely defined right to take intermittent leave with minimal notice for any ``issue relating to ``the family member's service''--a phrase which can be interpreted to cover just about any activity. My amendment, on the other hand offers a clear method for earning and using paid leave time. The Feingold amendment is a mandate in search of a problem--no need has been demonstrated for it and in fact, in a recent survey of activated Armed Service members' spouses, 80 percent stated that their employers were supportive of their need to complete pre-activation tasks. In light of this existing support by employers, my amendment creates a voluntary system of adding flextime to the work schedule. Therefore, employers who already have programs in place to accommodate military families will have the option of maintaining those programs or adopting a flextime initiative, they will not be forced to add another complicated layer onto the already confusing Family and Medical Leave law. I also point out that the Feingold amendment has never been the subject of a single House or Senate hearing. I am sure that many of my colleagues, like me, have heard from businesses concerned about the difficulties they will face in interpreting and implementing the Feingold amendment. Flextime proposals, however, have been vetted in no fewer than 8 hearings in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. There is also concerns that the Feingold amendment may threaten the operation of military bases. According to the Department of Defense. ``If a major military unit were deployed from a single base, this policy could effectively shut down the installation depending upon the number of family member employees covered.'' My amendment would not present such a threat to military installations because it does not apply to public employees. Finally, Mr. President, I recognize that all of us want to do what we can to ease the burden on families who have a family member--be it a spouse, parent or child--serving to protect our nation. The sacrifice they are willing to make is nothing short of remarkable. I believe the approach I am offering here today is the best way to help these families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate adopted the Murray amendment No. 3427, to facilitate the availability of childcare for the children of members of the Armed Forces on active duty in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. I support that amendment but wanted to additionally acknowledge efforts that are already underway in the private sector to help support those who are risking their lives to keep us safe. I would like to speak about the American spirit. We are a people who can do great things when united. We have witnessed this in recent months with dozens of home-front stories of the many great deeds of Americans in support of our troops and our Nation's efforts abroad in the war on terror. There is Spirit of America, a private group which set out to raise $100,000 to build TV stations in Iraq. Americans responded with thousands of donations totaling $1.52 million. Federal Express donated the domestic shipping costs of the equipment for this gift to the country of Iraq. Those stations are being built now and will offer the Iraqi people a national and independent news source that is not Al- Jazeera. This is great. This American spirit is also responsible for the gift of 10,000 school supply kits, 3 tons of medical supplies, and 2 tons of `friendship' Frisbees to the Iraqi people, all paid for and donated by Americans. You hear about American students donating books to Iraqi schools and sending letters to Iraqi children. And now, thousands of childcare providers have united across the country to donate childcare services to National Guard and Reserve members home on 2 week R&R leave from Iraq and Afghanistan to allow them to carry out personal business, take their spouses out on a date, or enjoy other recreational activities while they are home. Operation Childcare is an effort of the Nation's network of childcare resource and referral, NACCRRA, their local agencies, and thousands of childcare providers across the country to give back to those men and women who are fighting to keep us safe. This program was designed for those members of the military who do not live near military bases and therefore do not have access to family support programs provided to Active-Duty personnel. So far, over 4,700 centers and individual providers have signed on to Operation Childcare. In my home State of New Hampshire there are 35 providers who are donating childcare to our guardsmen and reservists. These numbers continue to grow, as more people hear about the program. Childcare providers who volunteer their time for Operation Childcare will receive official recognition, but I suspect many would agree with one childcare provider in Tennessee who said: You don't have to recognize me--I am just thrilled and honored to be able to do something to help our troops. NACCRRA should be applauded for their efforts in organizing this service for our service members. This is but a snapshot of the home-front efforts being carried out by thousands of Americans across this country. The American people are truly united behind our men and women in uniform. This is the American spirit that continues to inspire.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought to light yet another example of how outdated and burdensome government policies often punish generous employers in America. Apparently, when it comes to companies showing respect for employees who are called to active duty in the military, there is special meaning to the old cliche that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' The National Committee for Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve, a nationwide association, reports that over 2,500 employers have signed a pledge of support and have gone above and beyond the requirements of the law in support of their National Guard and Reserve employees. This includes many of our Nation's largest and most reputable corporations, including 3M, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Liberty Mutual and many others. These remarkable companies provide reservist employees who are on active duty with ``differential pay'' that makes up the difference between their military stipend and civilian salary. National companies are not the only patriotic businesses providing special pay to our men and women who are called to serve overseas. Some of the most remarkable stories of corporate patriotism can be found in my state of New Hampshire. BAE Systems of Nashua provides differential pay to their 25 called-up employees and continuing access to benefits to family members. The company even provides a stipend to make up the lost pay of active duty spouses of company employees when the spouse's employer is not able to provide differential pay. The corporate culture of support for the troops at BAE Systems is universal. Employees are encouraged to stay in touch with the families of fellow employees on active duty to help out where they can, and to avoid the Vietnam Syndrome of isolation. When you walk into BAE Systems headquarters, you cannot help but notice the flags of the branches of the United States armed services. And then there is the story of Mr. Marian Noronha, Chairman and Founder of Turbocam, a manufacturer based in Dover, New Hampshire. An immigrant from India, Mr. Noronha has not only provided his employees with differential pay and continued family health benefits, but he has also extended to each of his activated employees a $10,000 line of credit. His active duty reservist and Guard employees have used this money to, among other things, purchase personal computers so their families can communicate with them while they are overseas. Beyond this, Mr. Noronha actively encourages other employers to treat their reservist employees in a similar manner. Several other New Hampshire private-sector companies, including Hitchiner Manufacturing Company in Milford, also have exemplary records when it comes to dealing with their employees in the Reserves and National Guard. Finally, New Hampshire's Governor Benson by Executive Order has also extended differential pay for up to 18 months to State employees who have been called to active duty. Unfortunately, an arcane IRS interpretation of tax law actually penalizes these kinds of employers that voluntarily pay their National Guard and reservist employees the difference between their military stipends and their previous civilian salaries--which appropriately is called ``differential pay.'' The law also penalizes employers that continue making contributions to retirement plans for such employees. According to the IRS, members of the Guard and reserves called up for active duty are required to be treated as if they are on a leave of absence by their employers under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, USERRA. Therefore, the act does not require employers to pay workers who are on active duty. However, many employers--out of a sense of civic duty--continue to pay active duty Guard members and reservists the difference between their military stipends and their regular salaries with some employers providing such ``differential pay'' for up to 3 years. In additions, many of these remarkable companies go even further and allow their active duty employees to continue making contributions to their 401(k) retirement plans via deductions from the ``differential payments.'' However, rather than applauding and encouraging such selfless behavior by companies in continuing to provide retirement benefits for Reservists, the IRS's 1969 Revenue Ruling requires that the active duty workers be treated as if they were ``terminated.'' As a result, this law then puts at risk the retirement plan for an employer's entire workforce and could make all amounts in the plan immediately taxable to the plan's participants and the employer. Adding to the absurdity of the situation, preventing an employer from treating ``differential pay'' as wages under the law means employers are prohibited from withholding income taxes, which in turn causes their active duty former employees to face large and unexpected tax bills at the end of the year. We should change this Vietnam War-era IRS interpretation of tax law that actually penalizes responsible, caring, patriotic employers like BAE Systems, Hitchiner Manufacturing, and many other companies who voluntarily provide differential pay. I have offered a bill to do just that, S. 2448, but the problem could be corrected more appropriately and quickly by the Internal Revenue Service by revising the outdated revenue ruling that effectively discourages employers from providing additional pay to their employees who are reservists or Guard members called to active duty. The sense of the Senate amendment I am offering today urges the Internal Revenue Service to reconsider the ramifications of applying a Vietnam-era revenue ruling to the prevailing circumstances of the present day. Specifically it expresses the sense of the Senate that the IRS should, ``to the extent it is able within its authority, provide guidance consistent with the goal of promoting and ensuring the validity of voluntary differential pay arrangements, benefits payments, and contributions related thereto.'' Employers should not be penalized for the generosity they provide to our nation's reservists and members of the Guard. This sense of the Senate urges the Internal Revenue Service to help employers avoid these problems. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent a newsletter be printed in the Record from BAE Systems titled ``Connections,'' published last month, that outlines the differential pay benefits that BAE provides their employees called up to active National Guard or Reserve duty.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, Senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.