Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Utah, didn't Mr. Estrada come to the United States without speaking any English when he was a teenager?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last year our Nation was stunned by a videotape of a mother beating her 4 year old daughter in the parking lot of a shopping center. Yet the unfortunate fact is that each year, behind closed doors, close to one million children in the United States are abused or neglected and as a result, are in need of assistance and out-of-home care. I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Dodd and Alexander, in introducing legislation aimed at reducing child abuse and neglect and mitigating its very damaging impact. The ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003'' reauthorizes four key programs designed to do just that. First, we reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, which provides grants to States to improve child protection systems and to support community-based family resource and support services. CAPTA also authorizes research and demonstration projects aimed at preventing and treating child abuse and neglect. The last reauthorization of CAPTA in 1996 made significant changes in this program to better target limited Federal resources and to enhance the ability of States to respond to the most serious cases of abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, the issues facing an overburdened child welfare system are seldom easily resolved. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act will build upon previous changes to CAPTA, by enhancing the CPS workforce and continuing to ensure that children and families receive appropriate services and referrals. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today encourages new training and better qualifications for child and family service workers. With this reauthorization, States can give additional training to CPS workers on how to best work with families from the time that the CPS worker walks through the door of a home to the point of treatment for the child and family. In 2000, CPS workers nationwide investigated 1.7 million cases of reported Child Abuse and Neglect. The environments in which CPS workers conduct these investigations can vary greatly in level of safety. With this legislation, States will be able to use Federal dollars to provide some personal safety training for CPS workers for when they enter the home. Additionally, the rights of families are also addressed during the initial stages of investigation, by requiring CPS workers to inform individuals of child maltreatment allegations made against them. During their investigations, CPS workers encounter a myriad of types of abuse. In 2000, approximately 63 percent of children who were victims of maltreatment suffered neglect, 19 percent suffered physical abuse, 10 percent suffered sexual abuse, and 8 percent suffered emotional maltreatment. In order to help insure that cases of abuse and neglect are properly identified, States would be able to provide cross- training for CPS workers to help them better recognize neglect, domestic violence or substance abuse in a family. This bill would also enhance linkages between child protection services and education, health, mental health, and judicial systems. Further, it would encourage greater collaboration with the juvenile justice system to ensure that children who move between these two systems do so smoothly and receive the proper services. As a condition of receiving state grant money, we ask States to have policies and procedures, including referral to CPS, to address the needs of infants who have been prenatally exposed to illegal substances. We also require States to perform background checks on all adults in prospective foster care households. Current law only requires that checks be performed on the prospective foster care parent. We have all heard the horrific accounts in the media of those children who slip through the cracks of the child protective system. It is our hope that with this reauthorization, which includes an increase in authorization to $200 million, we can help States to fill some of those cracks. The second program we reauthorize is the Adoption Opportunities Act. This Act is intended to eliminate barriers to adoption and to provide permanent homes for children, particularly children who are hard to place, including children with special needs, older children, and disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. With 131,000 children currently waiting for adoption, we must improve upon this program by seeking to further tear down barriers to adoption. Specifically--we are placing an increased emphasis on the elimination of inter-jurisdictional barriers to adoption. This Act would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to fund public or private entities, including States, to develop a uniform home-study standard and protocols for acceptance of home-studies between States and jurisdictions. The Secretary would also help to facilitate cross-jurisdictional placements by developing models of financing, expanding capacity of all adoption exchanges to serve increasing numbers of children, training social workers on preparing and moving children across State lines, and developing and supporting models for networking among agencies, adoption exchange, and parent support groups across jurisdictional boundaries. Within one year of enactment, the bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the General Accounting Office, to facilitate the inter-jurisdictional adoption of foster children. Additionally, the bill would also make inter- jurisdictional adoption issues--including financing and best practices--a part of a larger study HHS would be required to conduct on adoption placements. Current law generally allows HHS to fund services provided by public and nonprofit private agencies only. To help facilitate this process, we would double the current authorization for this title from $20 million to $40 million. Third, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 reauthorizes the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. This program authorizes demonstration grants to public and private nonprofit agencies for activities aimed at preventing the abandonment of infants, identifying and addressing the needs of abandoned infants, and recruiting and training foster families for abandoned children. Currently, grant recipients must ensure that priority for their services is given to abandoned infants and young children who are HIV- infected, perinatally exposed to HIV, or perinatally drug-exposed. This legislation, which includes and increase in authorization to $45 million, would broaden priority for services to include abandoned infants and young children who have life threatening illnesses or other special medical needs. Finally, we reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, FVPSA, which assists in efforts to increase public awareness about family violence and provide immediate shelter and related assistance to victims of family violence and their children. This reauthorization increases the authorization for the National Domestic Violence Hotline to $5 million and establishes a National Domestic Violence Shelter Network to link domestic violence shelters and service providers and the National Domestic Violence Hotline on a confidential website. The website would provide a continuously updated list of shelter availability anywhere in the United States at any time and would provide comprehensive information describing the services each shelter provides such as medical, social and bilingual services. It would also provide internet access to shelters that do not have appropriate technology. Domestic violence and child abuse affect thousands upon thousands of families each year, often with tragic results. In the year 2000 alone, 1200 children died as a consequence of child abuse and neglect, 85 percent of whom were under the age of 6. We must continue our efforts to stem the tide of abuse to prevent these dreadful results. This legislation reauthorizes four programs that address the needs of some of our most at-risk children and families, and I urge my colleagues' support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last year our Nation was stunned by a videotape of a mother beating her 4 year old daughter in the parking lot of a shopping center. Yet the unfortunate fact is that each year, behind closed doors, close to one million children in the United States are abused or neglected and as a result, are in need of assistance and out-of-home care. I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Dodd and Alexander, in introducing legislation aimed at reducing child abuse and neglect and mitigating its very damaging impact. The ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003'' reauthorizes four key programs designed to do just that. First, we reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, which provides grants to States to improve child protection systems and to support community-based family resource and support services. CAPTA also authorizes research and demonstration projects aimed at preventing and treating child abuse and neglect. The last reauthorization of CAPTA in 1996 made significant changes in this program to better target limited Federal resources and to enhance the ability of States to respond to the most serious cases of abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, the issues facing an overburdened child welfare system are seldom easily resolved. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act will build upon previous changes to CAPTA, by enhancing the CPS workforce and continuing to ensure that children and families receive appropriate services and referrals. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today encourages new training and better qualifications for child and family service workers. With this reauthorization, States can give additional training to CPS workers on how to best work with families from the time that the CPS worker walks through the door of a home to the point of treatment for the child and family. In 2000, CPS workers nationwide investigated 1.7 million cases of reported Child Abuse and Neglect. The environments in which CPS workers conduct these investigations can vary greatly in level of safety. With this legislation, States will be able to use Federal dollars to provide some personal safety training for CPS workers for when they enter the home. Additionally, the rights of families are also addressed during the initial stages of investigation, by requiring CPS workers to inform individuals of child maltreatment allegations made against them. During their investigations, CPS workers encounter a myriad of types of abuse. In 2000, approximately 63 percent of children who were victims of maltreatment suffered neglect, 19 percent suffered physical abuse, 10 percent suffered sexual abuse, and 8 percent suffered emotional maltreatment. In order to help insure that cases of abuse and neglect are properly identified, States would be able to provide cross- training for CPS workers to help them better recognize neglect, domestic violence or substance abuse in a family. This bill would also enhance linkages between child protection services and education, health, mental health, and judicial systems. Further, it would encourage greater collaboration with the juvenile justice system to ensure that children who move between these two systems do so smoothly and receive the proper services. As a condition of receiving state grant money, we ask States to have policies and procedures, including referral to CPS, to address the needs of infants who have been prenatally exposed to illegal substances. We also require States to perform background checks on all adults in prospective foster care households. Current law only requires that checks be performed on the prospective foster care parent. We have all heard the horrific accounts in the media of those children who slip through the cracks of the child protective system. It is our hope that with this reauthorization, which includes an increase in authorization to $200 million, we can help States to fill some of those cracks. The second program we reauthorize is the Adoption Opportunities Act. This Act is intended to eliminate barriers to adoption and to provide permanent homes for children, particularly children who are hard to place, including children with special needs, older children, and disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. With 131,000 children currently waiting for adoption, we must improve upon this program by seeking to further tear down barriers to adoption. Specifically--we are placing an increased emphasis on the elimination of inter-jurisdictional barriers to adoption. This Act would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to fund public or private entities, including States, to develop a uniform home-study standard and protocols for acceptance of home-studies between States and jurisdictions. The Secretary would also help to facilitate cross-jurisdictional placements by developing models of financing, expanding capacity of all adoption exchanges to serve increasing numbers of children, training social workers on preparing and moving children across State lines, and developing and supporting models for networking among agencies, adoption exchange, and parent support groups across jurisdictional boundaries. Within one year of enactment, the bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the General Accounting Office, to facilitate the inter-jurisdictional adoption of foster children. Additionally, the bill would also make inter- jurisdictional adoption issues--including financing and best practices--a part of a larger study HHS would be required to conduct on adoption placements. Current law generally allows HHS to fund services provided by public and nonprofit private agencies only. To help facilitate this process, we would double the current authorization for this title from $20 million to $40 million. Third, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 reauthorizes the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. This program authorizes demonstration grants to public and private nonprofit agencies for activities aimed at preventing the abandonment of infants, identifying and addressing the needs of abandoned infants, and recruiting and training foster families for abandoned children. Currently, grant recipients must ensure that priority for their services is given to abandoned infants and young children who are HIV- infected, perinatally exposed to HIV, or perinatally drug-exposed. This legislation, which includes and increase in authorization to $45 million, would broaden priority for services to include abandoned infants and young children who have life threatening illnesses or other special medical needs. Finally, we reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, FVPSA, which assists in efforts to increase public awareness about family violence and provide immediate shelter and related assistance to victims of family violence and their children. This reauthorization increases the authorization for the National Domestic Violence Hotline to $5 million and establishes a National Domestic Violence Shelter Network to link domestic violence shelters and service providers and the National Domestic Violence Hotline on a confidential website. The website would provide a continuously updated list of shelter availability anywhere in the United States at any time and would provide comprehensive information describing the services each shelter provides such as medical, social and bilingual services. It would also provide internet access to shelters that do not have appropriate technology. Domestic violence and child abuse affect thousands upon thousands of families each year, often with tragic results. In the year 2000 alone, 1200 children died as a consequence of child abuse and neglect, 85 percent of whom were under the age of 6. We must continue our efforts to stem the tide of abuse to prevent these dreadful results. This legislation reauthorizes four programs that address the needs of some of our most at-risk children and families, and I urge my colleagues' support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the Act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members when employees plan to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. These problems have been well documented in six separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing where I testified. Problems with the FMLA implementation have been documented in the courts. The validity of 13 different Department of Labor regulations relating to the Act has been challenged in 64 reported court decisions. Included in this, of course, is the Supreme Court's invalidation of one of the Department's regulations in the 2002 case of Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide Inc. And, yesterday's Washington Post reported that there have been some 1,300 Federal cases dealing with various aspects of the law, according to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented problems with the Act, today I am introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its original congressional intent. The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and strengthened by six congressional hearings and by the recent release of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad due to the Department of Labor's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, notification, and certification problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater. I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has been attributed to the administration's problematic FMLA interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 Society for Human Resource Management Benefits Survey found that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent in 1999, and decreased to 74 percent the following year. A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. The recent release of the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, 2003 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, more than half, or 52 percent, of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the ability to plan for work disruptions. Yesterday's Washington Post article reported that the biggest thing the Department of Labor hears about is the ``chronic use of unforseen, intermittent leave.'' Respondents to the SHRM survey also reported that, in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, 50 percent said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, or 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely difficult. SHRM's 2000 FMLA survey showed that three-quarters, or 76 percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes. I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not easier, ten years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 108th Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals, and close to 300 other leading companies and associations that make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. This broad-based coalition shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the Act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' On the other hand, the Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve. The regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. For example, in the 1995 case of Freemon v. Foley, in the Northern District of Illinois, the court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her position.'' Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that, if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women and families in America. Today, along with Senators Enzi, and Sessions, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is to give families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family. The demand for family time is evident. Let me give you some of the latest statistics. Seventy percent of employees don't think there is a healthy balance between work and personal life. Seventy percent of employees today say that family is their most important priority. This compares to 54 percent in 2000. Forty six percent of employees either feel overworked, overwhelmed by the quantity of their work, or lack the time to step back and reflect on their work. Sixty one percent of adults say they would give up some of their pay for more time with their family. Employees say that finding time for family is a more pressing concern than layoffs, 32 percent vs 22 percent. This compares to 25 percent in 1999. In light of the cry of America's workers for more family time, and in honor of today's 10-year anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, I am introducing the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, which will build upon the spirit of the FMLA, by updating federal law to allow a more flexible workplace. This legislation is not a total solution: there are many other provisions under the 64-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act that need our attention. But the legislation I am introducing today is an important part of the solution. It gives working families a choice. The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists of three main provisions. The first allows employees the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. The third provision gives employees the option of a ``flexible credit hour program,'' under which the employer and employee can agree to allow the employee to work excess hours in his schedule in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later time. The flexible credit hour option is for employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to build up hours to take off later. Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal Government since 1978. For over three decades, federal workers have had this special privilege. The federal program was so successful in fact, that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it to parts of the Federal government that had not yet had the benefits of the program. The President stated that: ``Broad use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' I couldn't agree more. While Federal employees enjoy the benefits of flexible workplace arrangements, members of the private sector do not have such options. The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act does. In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some that what working families really need is more money. They need their overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not decide for them which priority is important for their family. I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks they need. It's time to give working families what Federal employees have already--workplace flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, a bill summary, and an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the Act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members when employees plan to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. These problems have been well documented in six separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing where I testified. Problems with the FMLA implementation have been documented in the courts. The validity of 13 different Department of Labor regulations relating to the Act has been challenged in 64 reported court decisions. Included in this, of course, is the Supreme Court's invalidation of one of the Department's regulations in the 2002 case of Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide Inc. And, yesterday's Washington Post reported that there have been some 1,300 Federal cases dealing with various aspects of the law, according to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented problems with the Act, today I am introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its original congressional intent. The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and strengthened by six congressional hearings and by the recent release of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad due to the Department of Labor's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, notification, and certification problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater. I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has been attributed to the administration's problematic FMLA interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 Society for Human Resource Management Benefits Survey found that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent in 1999, and decreased to 74 percent the following year. A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. The recent release of the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, 2003 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, more than half, or 52 percent, of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the ability to plan for work disruptions. Yesterday's Washington Post article reported that the biggest thing the Department of Labor hears about is the ``chronic use of unforseen, intermittent leave.'' Respondents to the SHRM survey also reported that, in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, 50 percent said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, or 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely difficult. SHRM's 2000 FMLA survey showed that three-quarters, or 76 percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes. I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not easier, ten years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 108th Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals, and close to 300 other leading companies and associations that make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. This broad-based coalition shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the Act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' On the other hand, the Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve. The regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. For example, in the 1995 case of Freemon v. Foley, in the Northern District of Illinois, the court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her position.'' Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that, if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women and families in America. Today, along with Senators Enzi, and Sessions, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is to give families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family. The demand for family time is evident. Let me give you some of the latest statistics. Seventy percent of employees don't think there is a healthy balance between work and personal life. Seventy percent of employees today say that family is their most important priority. This compares to 54 percent in 2000. Forty six percent of employees either feel overworked, overwhelmed by the quantity of their work, or lack the time to step back and reflect on their work. Sixty one percent of adults say they would give up some of their pay for more time with their family. Employees say that finding time for family is a more pressing concern than layoffs, 32 percent vs 22 percent. This compares to 25 percent in 1999. In light of the cry of America's workers for more family time, and in honor of today's 10-year anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, I am introducing the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, which will build upon the spirit of the FMLA, by updating federal law to allow a more flexible workplace. This legislation is not a total solution: there are many other provisions under the 64-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act that need our attention. But the legislation I am introducing today is an important part of the solution. It gives working families a choice. The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists of three main provisions. The first allows employees the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. The third provision gives employees the option of a ``flexible credit hour program,'' under which the employer and employee can agree to allow the employee to work excess hours in his schedule in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later time. The flexible credit hour option is for employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to build up hours to take off later. Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal Government since 1978. For over three decades, federal workers have had this special privilege. The federal program was so successful in fact, that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it to parts of the Federal government that had not yet had the benefits of the program. The President stated that: ``Broad use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' I couldn't agree more. While Federal employees enjoy the benefits of flexible workplace arrangements, members of the private sector do not have such options. The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act does. In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some that what working families really need is more money. They need their overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not decide for them which priority is important for their family. I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks they need. It's time to give working families what Federal employees have already--workplace flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, a bill summary, and an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have had the good fortune of knowing and working with Dave Hoppe for the last 9 years. He has been a vital part of this institution and he will be sorely missed. I first had the opportunity to know him as chief of staff for Senator Dan Coats. Senator Coats unfortunately lost Dave when Dave moved over to be chief of staff for Senator Lott's Republican conference secretary's office, then his majority whip office and then his majority leader's office. I had the opportunity to work closely with Dave on an issue that we both feel passionately about: special education. After 2 years of failed negotiations, Dave Hoppe almost single-handedly managed to get this critical legislation authorized. The manner in which Dave approached this reauthorization and his ultimate success provides a wonderful example on why Dave was so successful in the Senate. He managed to bring Republicans and Democrats together by working in a straightforward, open, and honest manner which allowed Members to feel confident that their concerns were being thoroughly considered. Dave has served in both the majority and the minority--always representing his boss effectively, while also working to ensure that the Senate accomplished its work. Dave is esteemed in the Senate for more than the passion and principles he brought to bear on issues. He is respected first and foremost for his character as a person and as a leader. This is an institution that is built on trust. Dave is a person whose word is his bond. He has been so effective as the leader's chief of staff for precisely that reason. Members on both sides of the aisle always knew they could depend on the promises that he gave and relied on his word without reservation. It is also remarkable that he wielded such enormous influence without any trace of pretension or pride. He was accessible to members and staff alike, serving with grace, good humor and sound counsel. I will personally miss Dave. He ranks among those men and women of honor who have shaped the best qualities of the Senate. He made it a better institution through his service and his character, and we owe him our gratitude.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion which was obviously laid forth last night in definitively strong terms by the President of the United States on the issue of our national defense and how we address the terrorism and the linkage between terrorism and the Iraqi situation. The response to the President has been interesting. From some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and others, it has been said that the President is too bellicose. In fact, I understand today that Senator Kennedy will bring forth a resolution which will essentially say that. Certainly we have heard from Members of the self-proclaimed peace movement, that is the case. However, the President made a strong statement of facts that we as a nation are at risk. It is ironic that the Members who may subscribe to this self-proclaimed peace movement which might better be defined as an appeasement movement, that they appear to ignore the fact we are already at war. Approximately 3,000 people died in New York; hundreds died here in Washington; over 100 died on a plane in Pennsylvania; men were killed on a ship, the USS Cole, a U.S. military ship, in Yemen; Americans were killed at two embassies in Africa. We are at war. The representation that we should not fight that war with all our resources and all our capabilities is, I believe, inappropriate. How do you link Iraq into this war? If this were a period of the 19th century or even large portions of the 20th century, you would not worry about Iraq. You probably would not even worry about al-Qaida. They would be, in the case of Iraq, a government of a petty despot; in the case of al-Qaida, a group of Iraqi murderers. The difference today is that this petty despot and these petty murderers have in their possession or may gain the possession of weapons which can kill not hundreds but can kill tens of thousands of people, weapons which would be used, undoubtedly, against Americans. They intend America harm. They have shown that in their attacks to date where Americans have died. The President, as our Commander in Chief and the leader of our Nation and the leader of the free world, is unquestionably correct in pursuing the individuals who possess those weapons and who might use them or the individuals who might seek those weapons and use them across the globe. There is absolutely no question but that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, and that it has an intention to obtain nuclear weapons. There is also virtually no question, at least among anyone willing to look at the facts, that Iraq is in communication with our enemies in al-Qaida. The idea we should subjugate our national security to others is also one that I find inherently difficult to defend. Paris was not attacked. Berlin was not attacked. New York City was attacked. It is our national security, America's national security, that is at risk. The President has made it abundantly clear that his purpose is to defend the homeland. He has every right--in fact, he has every obligation--to do that and to accomplish it. I believe he has laid out a case that, year in and year out, the Iraqi Government, led by a despot of inordinate inhumanity, who has killed thousands, who has used weapons of mass destruction, who has used gas on his own people, who has tortured, raped, and murdered his opposition--that that Government represents an imminent threat to us as a nation and to our allies. Until that Government disarms, it remains such a threat. We have sought to disarm Iraq for 12 years through a process of inspections guided by the United Nations resolutions. At every turn, Iraq has essentially gamed the process and has retained its capacity to kill while denying that it has such capacity. At every turn, it has obfuscated and attempted to subvert the efforts of the inspectors, denying them access, just in the most recent weeks, to legitimate needs that they have as inspectors, of overflights, of access to the scientists who produce the weapons of mass destruction, of accurate accounting of where the weapons are that we know are in existence, where the anthrax is, where the VX gas is, where the delivery systems are for those weapons. There was another period in history when we confronted a time such as this, and that was in the late 1930s to the run-up to World War II. During that period, once again people of good intention said: Give Adolf Hitler a chance. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Appease him. Try to work with him. Neville Chamberlain, in his famous flight to Munich, attempted to accomplish that. But with people such as Adolf Hitler, with people such as Saddam Hussein, you do not reason in a Western, rational way; you do not reach accommodations, because their purpose is not to accommodate; their purpose is to use their power aggressively and in a manner which will harm the people we consider our allies, and which may harm ourselves, our Nation. So it is naive of us to presume we are going to succeed here if we follow such a course. We should look to history to confirm that naivete. The President has outlined a definitive purpose for our Nation and for the world. It is that we protect the rights of free nations to defend themselves from despots who have weapons of mass destruction and terrorists who would use such weapons to kill thousands of innocent people. We have that right. His words that ``the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world but is God's gift to humanity'' ring with incredible accuracy and truth. We, as a nation have an obligation to protect that liberty. Hopefully, working with the United Nations, we will be able to develop the coalitions necessary to accomplish that. It would still be appropriate to do it in a peaceful way. But that is not our call. We do not have the offense on that issue. Saddam Hussein's government has the offense on that issue. If they wish to proceed in a peaceful way to disarm, that course is sitting there for them. But they have shown no inclination to do that. In fact, just the opposite has been the course they have decided to pursue--one of obfuscation, one of deceit, one of continued commitment to possess and potentially use these weapons which kill thousands of people, innocent people, weapons which they have used in the past. When the President calls our Nation together and asks us as a society to join to protect ourselves and to protect the liberty which God has gifted to humanity, I believe we have an obligation to follow and to respect that call. This Congress has voted twice, once under President Clinton and once under President Bush, to empower the President to use the necessary force, to take the necessary action to protect our Nation and to protect the liberty of the world. This President has stepped up to that charge. If he had failed to step up to that charge, he would not be doing his job as Commander in Chief and as President. I believe this Congress has an equal obligation to step up to that charge. I hope as we move down this road, we will move united and recognize that this is a time when it falls on all of us to support the defense of freedom and liberty as defined by the President in his extraordinary speech last night. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of our time, yield the floor, and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 1:30 and 2 be under the control of Senator Hollings; the time between 2 and 3 be under the control of the majority leader or his designee; the time from 3 to 3:15 be under the control of Senator Harkin; the time between 3:15 and 3:30 be under the control of Senator Corzine; the time between 3:30 and 4 to be under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there have been a lot of representations made on the floor today by Members of the other side of the aisle relative to funding and lack of funding. It is interesting because, as we went through the last budget exercise in the Senate last week, when the appropriations bills were passed, we heard from the other side that they needed more and more money. And although the President tried to hold the line on fiscal discipline by setting a number of $750 billion of discretionary spending, which was the agreed-to amount signed off on by the Senator from West Virginia and members of the Democratic Party back when they controlled the Senate in the last Congress, suddenly we found that money was not enough. There was over a half a trillion dollars of new spending proposed from the other side of the aisle that was not offset, not paid for, that would have been put on top of the spending which the President had committed to. That irresponsible explosion in proposals in spending is an example of the lack of discipline which we are seeing in the area of fiscal policy from the other side of the aisle. It has to be put in the context not only of the fact that it is an explosive attempt to expand the Federal deficit through new spending, but also in the context of the fact that this President has made stronger commitments in the area of education and national defense than any President in recent times and certainly than the President who preceded him. I yield the floor. It is very hard for me to understand how with a straight face, Members from the other side of the aisle can come down here and attack this President for failing to fund education. When we look at what this President has done in the area of funding education, we need to look at some pretty simple and obvious charts. In his first year, President Bush increased funding for education over President Clinton's budget by $20 billion. That is $20 billion of new money this President put directly into education in his first year as President. An example of that commitment was in the area of special education, where President Clinton basically zero funded, relative to increases, the issue of special education, while President Bush dramatically increased it, by $1 billion a year, year in and year out, since he has been President the first 3 years--$1 billion each year, so that he has radically increased funding for special education. It is pretty hard for the other side to come down here and make the representation that this President has not significantly increased funding. In fact, if you look at the spending this President has committed to funding and done in the context of fiscal responsibility, not exploding the budget with spending as was proposed from the other side of the aisle when they proposed over half a trillion dollars of new spending last week without offsets, this President, in the area of education, has increased funding by $2.5 billion in the area of title I, for example, in his first 2 years in office. That is a greater increase, by 25 percent, than President Clinton gave in his 7 years in office. So the commitment for funding for education has been dramatic. We heard earlier that the President hasn't funded up to the authorization levels. That is not unusual in this Congress or in this Government not to fund to the authorization levels. I will point out that if you are going to compare funding up to the authorization levels of this Presidency versus President Clinton, under President Clinton's Presidency, the gap between funding, the difference between funding to appropriation levels and authorization levels was about twice what this President's gap is in that area. President Bush has done even a better job in coming close to funding at authorization levels than President Clinton did. It is really inconsistent and a touch hypocritical to come down here and attack President Bush for failing to fund education when, in fact, he has done more to fund education than any President in recent times and certainly dramatically more than his predecessor during a time when the Democratic Party controlled both the Senate and the Presidency. There have been other representations that he has not funded adequately homeland security. That is an incredible representation. When I hear the Senator from New York come down here and say that homeland security has not been adequately funded, when you think of the billions, tens of billions of dollars the Congress has voted to assist the City of New York, very appropriately, under the leadership of this President, I find it difficult to understand how that argument can be made. If you look at the funding in the area of the FBI, we have heard this representation: This number of agencies is going to have to be cut. That is a total fabrication. FBI funding under this President has gone up every year. It is going up significantly this year. It went up significantly last year. And more agents are being added. The same is true of the INS, the same is true of the Marshals Service, of DEA. All of these accounts come under the jurisdiction of a committee which I had the good fortune to be ranking member of and now am chairman of, the Commerce, State, Justice Committee. The representation that we are actually reducing manpower or reducing the accounts in these areas is simply wrong. It is inaccurate, and it is a gross misstatement. It should not be made on the floor of the Senate because people should know the facts before they come down here and make these representations.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I was of the impression that the unanimous consent gave us 7 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Five minutes.

Mr. GREGG. What is the status of the time?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to express opposition to a provision in the bill that syphons off critically needed enforcement funds in order to create an unnecessary bureaucracy. The bill instructs the Secretary of Labor to create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy. Committee language indicates that this office is to serve as a career ombudsman in the Department to advise Congress and the administration on necessary changes in policies to address problems affecting pension participants. It would also be charged with coordinating public and private efforts to assist participants and provide meaningful information. At this time of heightened concern for pension plan stability, it makes no sense to curtail the enforcement budget of the Pension & Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). President Bush had requested an additional $3 million for enforcement and compliance activities. This bill takes that $3 million and puts it instead in the separate Management account to create a new, unnecessary office. With every new corporate scandal, pension plan stability is put in doubt, and the PWBA is called into action. There is every reason to believe that Fiscal Year 2003 will be one of the agency's busiest every. Yet the money needed for enforcement has been diverted to create a new bureaucracy that duplicates current functions. Since the collapse of Enron, more Americans than ever have learned of the important and effective work of the PWBA. We all hailed the agency's action in ousting the Enron pension plan board of trustees, and putting outside experts in their place. The PWBA's profile has never been higher, and its needs have never been greater. Now is the time to fund pension plan enforcement. If this provision in the appropriations bill is allowed to become law, pension plan participants will be the losers. Enforcement efforts by the Department of Labor in their behalf will be curtailed. The money for enforcing their claims will have been diverted to decorate new offices for bureaucrats. As the chairman of the authorizing Committee for the Department of Labor, I am strongly opposed to efforts to restructure an important function of the Department. Likewise, I object to efforts to divert resources away from needed investigations, compliance efforts, and participant education. I oppose the creation of an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy at this time and in this manner. It must be recognized that the creation of such an Office is already within the management prerogative of the Secretary of Labor. She could create a separate office under current authority and resources. The proposal in the committee report language in essence micro-manages the Department. The proposed functions of the Office of Pension Participant Advocacy are duplicative of the ongoing functions of Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) of the Department of Labor. Today there are more than 100 highly trained and dedicated Benefits Advisors working out of PWBA's national office and 15 field offices located throughout the country. In 1996, PWBA had only 12 Benefits Advisors all located in the national office. The creation of this team of Benefits Advisors represents a serious commitment on the part of the Department to protecting the rights of and helping workers obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. The Benefits Advisors handled 170,000 inquiries in 2001 and recovered over $64 million in benefits for participants and beneficiaries through informed individual dispute resolution. Over $250 million have been obtained through this informal process over the last five years. These dollars are separate from any amounts recovered through the formal investigative process. Complaint referrals from PWBA's benefits advisors have become the best source of investigative case leads. If a complaint from an individual appears to indicate a fiduciary violation by the plan or a matter that impacts several participants and not just one individual, then that inquiry is referred to an investigator. According to statistics from the PWBA, last year 1,263 investigations were opened as a result of referrals from the Benefits Advisors; 1,238 investigations were closed with over $111 million in monetary results. The proposed research functions of the Office of Pension Participant Advocate also duplicate important research of the General Accounting Office and investigations of the Department's Inspector General. It is premature to establish an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy since it is the subject of ongoing legislative debate. Last year, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee narrowly reported out a pension reform bill that included a section creating an office of Pension Participant Advocacy with wider scope than is included in this appropriations bill. This year, the Democrat pension bill, S. 9, fails to include this controversial and unnecessary bureaucracy. The ERISA Industry Committee makes the point quite succinctly in a letter to every Senator: ``the creation of a new office in the federal government should be subject of full debate in the light of day. New government bureaucracy should not be established by adding provisions to appropriations bills, the language of which is unavailable to the public until after Committee consideration.'' I share their concerns. Therefore, it is inappropriate through this bill to divert and restructure the important work of the Department of Labor in protecting workers' pensions. I regret the manner in which this provision was added to this legislation and I will work to oppose it at every turn.

Mr. GREGG. I will do my best to see that appropriate funding is provided later in the year.

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senators' interest in this area, and I believe we should work to pass legislation to provide appropriate compensation. I have scheduled a hearing in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for next week that I hope will delve into many of the questions we must address in crafting the appropriate policy in this area. We are all in agreement that we should work to address this issue in a timely manner, and I will work with the Senator and leaders to ensure prompt consideration in the committee and on the floor of the Senate of such legislation.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Spector, to engage in a colloquy on certain appropriations within his subcommittee's jurisdiction. There is a $2 million appropriation for the Department of Labor that indicates that the Secretary may use it if she decides to issue new ergonomic standards. It is my understanding that the appropriation is not a mandate or a direction to the Secretary to issue any such standard, but it is only available in case there is a decision made to issue those standards. Is that correct?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Although we cannot amend the report at this point, I would urge the EDA to evaluate the Providence Performing Arts Center project along with the other projects listed in the committee report. The project should be given every consideration within applicable procedures and guidelines by the Economic Development Administration.

Mr. GREGG. It is. In fact, the proposal to renovate and operate a vibrant theater appears to be just the type of job-creating project EDA should be encouraging in our downtowns.

Mr. GREGG. That is correct. The committee listed six such proposals.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. This amendment is very simple. It says, let's set the priorities of special education. Let's add, on top of the $1 billion the President is putting in this year, which is on top of $1 billion he put in last year, which was on top of $1 billion he put in the year before, another $1.5 billion, but let's be responsible about it. Let's take the money out of the other accounts, which represents a four- tenths of 1 percent cut across the board on everybody, a very small number, very doable, and let's do a responsible amendment here on special education and take the increase of $1.5 billion and, in exchange for getting that increase in special education, make the across-the-board cut. I reserve the remainder of my time.