Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act

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. 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. President, today I rise, along with Senator Breaux to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation.

This legislation, reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and unanimously passed by the full Senate during the 107th Congress, would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the region.

Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area.

This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the Atchafalaya Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area were created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. The Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives some State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create the management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service. Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning process, with participation of local National Park Service representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal Government.

Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program. In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards different from those already in effect.

Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing National Heritage Areas around the Nation.

The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important resource, its people.

I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to understanding America's future. The name of the place itself, Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.'' This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of whom still live there today.

Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious, dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay between nature and culture. The history of the United States has been shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against, and for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure, adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy unlike anywhere else in the world.

The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old- growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans, such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest- dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood- dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.

The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas, and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too, but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and forced residents to find new ways to make a living.

Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to

protect human settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the Mississippi River is caged within the walls of earthen and concrete levees and manipulated with a complex system of locks, barrages and floodgates. The Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and through the center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin serves as the key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the large population centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting water from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was sorely tested in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the floodgates and permanently divert the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya. However, after this massive flood event, new land started forming off the coast. These new land formations make up the Atchafalaya Delta, and is the only significant area of new land being built in the United States. These vast amounts of Mississippi River sediment are also rapidly filling in the Basin itself, raising the level of land in certain areas of the basin and filling in lakes and waterways. And to demonstrate just how complex this ecosystem is, one only needs to realize that just to the East of the Delta, Terrebonne parish, also in the heritage area, is experiencing some of the most significant coastal land loss in the country.

Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia. Twenty-five hundred to three thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in Louisiana where they proceeded to re-establish their former society. Today, in spite of complex social, cultural, and demographic transformations, Cajuns maintain a sense of group identity and continue to display a distinctive set of cultural expressions nearly two- hundred-and-fifty years after their exile from Acadia. Cajun culture has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana. Culinary specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee, boudin, andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux, delight food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has also ``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and ballads and instrumental dance music, and more recently popular country, rhythm- and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing interest in Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique traditions, many of the region's residents are concerned about the growing commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish the authentic Cajun ways of life.

While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language, food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians, Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa, Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.

This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic, natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build. Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans. Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However, more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and rural areas.

These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation will bring a level of prestige and national and international recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am most pleased to be joined by our esteemed colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, to introduce the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act. This legislation is the foundation for ensuring that the United States remains the preeminent Nation in the design, engineering and production of military and civilian aircraft.

The last 5 years have seen the NASA budget for aeronautics research and development literally cut in half from $1 billion to its current level of $500 million. In making these cuts, the United States has been rendered more vulnerable to foreign competition in the field of aeronautics. The nations of Europe have moved in the exact opposite direction--dramatically increasing such funding in an effort to control the world's aviation market. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal documents the rise of Airbus as the largest producer of civilian aircraft in the world. If forecasts for this year hold true, Airbus will deliver more aircraft than Boeing for the first time. In light of these disturbing developments it is obvious that the U.S. is in grave danger of losing its position as the world leader in aeronautics and aviation.

It is important to note that throughout the history of aeronautics and aviation that this country has been at the forefront of discovery and innovation. It began with the First Flight of the Wright Brothers on December 17, 1903 in Kitty Hawk, NC, followed by the historic flight of Charles Lindbergh from New York to Paris in May of 1927. U.S. companies have led the aviation and aeronautics industry from the propeller era into the jet engine era. The research and innovation of the U.S. has been the primary reason the world enjoys the convenience and safety of air travel today.

Our military has seen the benefits from the progress made in aeronautics research. The significant improvements made from World War I to World War II directly impacted the Allies ability to establish air superiority. The numerous advances made in U.S. aircraft design greatly increased the top speed and altitude of bombers and fighters during crucial years of the war. Since then, our country's aeronautics research has made it the dominant air power in the world, with technologies years in advance of its closest pursuers. As a result of these advancements, U.S. troops are placed in far less harm and more precise strikes against enemy targets can be made while avoiding non- targeted civilians.

Fortunately NASA has recognized the emergence of international competition and the need for the U.S. to re-assert itself as the lead nation in aeronautics research technology and innovation. The recently published ``The NASA Aeronautics Blueprint--Toward a Bold Era of Aviation'' is an excellent report on the problems facing American aviation and aeronautics. It also provides an exciting vision of what can be achieved by investing in aeronautics research and development. However NASA has not provided a program or plan for how to achieve this vision nor funding levels that would be required

to attain the goals laid out in the Blueprint. Thus without a plan or funding, it is unlikely this report would ever be acted upon.

In an effort to tackle the major initiatives of the NASA Blueprint head-on, we are introducing the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act. The legislation will provide aggressive funding authorizations to provide the NASA aeronautics program with the resources it needs to keep the United States on the cutting edge of all aspects of aeronautics and aviation. Our complacency must change now to prevent further damage to our competitiveness in aviation. The U.S. aviation industry is the largest contributor to the U.S. balance of trade and directly accounts for $343 billion to the U.S. economy and 4.2 million positions to our job market.

First, consider the impact of aviation on our communities. As air travel becomes more commonplace, increased aircraft noise will place a strain on both the citizens and businesses living and operating in the areas surrounding our nation's airports. The effect on property values and quality of life can be enormous, so it will be important to pursue technologies that reduce the level of noise emitted from aircraft. We also must acknowledge the rising emissions levels that are the result of increased air travel as well as the fuel consumption required to meet the growing number of planes in the air. The instability of oil prices and the growing effect of fuel emission on our atmosphere make it necessary to find improvement in fuel efficiency. These environmental factors must be addressed, or the American people will certainly face fewer choices and higher prices. To meet these needs, our legislation provides significant funding to be used for research, much of which will be designated for universities, industrial research facilities and not-for-profit research entities. The impacts of aviation are beginning to negatively impact the lives of many Americans; this initiative will make aircraft more environmentally friendly.

Additionally, strides also need to be made in rotorcraft technology. This legislation authorizes funding for, and tasks NASA with, improving the noise and vibration levels of helicopters, as well as improving the predicted accident rate to make it equivalent to that of fixed-wing aircraft. Helicopters are indispensable for our military and provide great convenience for the civilians. Making them safer and quieter is a worthwhile effort that should be pursued.

The promise of civil supersonic travel has been on the horizon for some time. However it has been difficult to perfect the technology for a civilian supersonic aircraft and the costs associated with such a program are high. The legislation we have introduced would required NASA to develop a road map for achieving the flight of a supersonic civil transport aircraft that can reach a speed of Mach 1.6, travel at least 4,000 nautical miles, and carry one hundred fifty passengers. If these goals can be met over the next twenty years, the U.S. aviation industry will be revolutionized. Achieving such speeds would change business and personal travel as it is known today. To bring this initiative forward, this legislation would authorize $110 million for the next five years. This should provide a good start in the effort to bring civilian air travel into the twenty-first century.

At the core of U.S. aeronautics and aviation superiority are men and women performing the research and development necessary for technological breakthroughs. The U.S. has seen a disturbing decline in the number of aeronautical engineers graduating from its universities. It is important to encourage American students to consider these fields. We need to make sure the best and the brightest are properly trained so they can make their creative ideas and theories a reality. This current trend is a leading reason the U.S. is losing ground in aeronautics research. To combat the dearth of aeronautics engineers, this legislation would authorize NASA to establish a generous scholarship program for those students seeking a Masters Degree in the field of aeronautics.

As air travel becomes more prevalent, it becomes more important that air traffic management and control are operating in the most effective and safe manner. This bill includes a measure that requires the Administrator of NASA to work with the Federal Aviation Association Administrator to develop a national initiative with the objective of defining and developing an air traffic management system designed to meet the national long-term aviation security needs, along with safety, security and capacity needs. These provisions will hopefully result in a new, more streamlined method for directing air traffic around our busiest airports and cities.

The measures and funding authorizations in this legislation are aggressive. However when considering the state of both the aeronautics and aviation industries. I believe it is time to take decisive action to ensure the long-term competitive supremacy of both our military and civilization aviation programs.

The majority of military aircraft technology was developed to some degree by NASA's aeronautics program. To make sure those risking their lives in the service of the country are afforded the best possible equipment in performing their duties, the U.S. government has the responsibility to make the necessary investments in research and development. In recent years we have seen a drastic cuts in the programs designed for this purpose. Technology and innovation are always moving forward, the government needs to expend the resources to keep the U.S. at the forefront of those efforts.

The civilian airline and aeronautics industry has largely been dominated by the United States since its beginning. Recent news reports have shown however that this phenomenon is changing. Countries around the world are making great progress in building larger, more efficient commuter airlines at a cheaper price. This new competition has jeopardized the jobs of thousands of highly trained engineers and works in this country. Keeping pace with the competition and working to maintain the lead over other aircraft providers is essential if we want to keep this important segment of the work force employed. Losing global contracts means job cuts. To turn this trend around we must commit to the research and development that leads to innovation in commercial aviation. Only then will we secure the existing jobs in this country and build the need for more jobs.

To make this legislation law we will have to make some difficult choices and priorities. Current economic conditions dictate that we cannot fund every desirable program. However, even in the face of the circumstances, I feel strongly that we can no longer complacently wait to make the changes outlined in this legislation. Making the United States the unquestioned leader in aeronautics research and development is in the best interest of our military, our civilian airline industry, quality jobs and balance of trade. The aviation industry affects the lives of almost all Americans. For these reasons, we ask our colleagues to carefully review the current condition of U.S. aeronautics and the implications of its continued decline. I am confident they will concur that this legislation is needed now without delay. Our security, competitive position, jobs and future are sitting on the runway needing our fuel for the aeronautics industry to take off into the future.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.

Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today every State in the country, five territories, and the District of Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand health coverage to even more children.

In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a substantial number of eligible children and parents still need coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a success.

Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to health care.

The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this innovative program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last September.

The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country.

While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition,

we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes.

Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities and the responders.

Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment.

This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the federal government to work with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.

As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local officials.

The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services.

The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs.

Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the GAO.

In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.

I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to day to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Smith from Oregon,

the multiemployer Pension Plan Procedural Fairness Act of 2003. The purpose of this legislation is to provide a modest amount of procedural fairness with respect to claims filed against former employers under the multiemployer pension plan (MEPPA) rules.

By way of background, MEPPA makes an employer that completely or partially withdraws from participation in a multiemployer pension fund liable for the employer's share of the plans' unfunded vested benefits. That liability is referred to as ``withdrawal liability'' and can be collected from any member of the controlled group of employers that included the withdrawing employer. The process of collecting withdrawal liability can become quite unfair when the pension fund attempts to assert liability against a former employer or a former member of a controlled group of employers that, as a result of a legitimate business separation, such as a sale or spin-off transaction, ceased to be associated with the withdrawing employer several years before the compete or partial withdrawal occurred.

MEPPA provides that a former employer or former member of a controlled group can still be liable if ``a principal purpose'' of the business separation transaction was ``to evade or avoid'' withdrawal liability. The legislative history indicates that the ``evade or avoid'' provision was designed to prevent unscrupulous employers from dumping a distressed subsidiary in order to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. I firmly believe that unscrupulous companies that attempt to evade withdrawal liability should be held liable. However, companies that engage in legitimate transactions should be able to defend against withdrawal liability claims that arose from events which occurred many years after the business separation.

The simplest way to understand the issue is with an illustration. Assume that a parent company operates a subsidiary that makes contributions to a multiemployer plan. Assume further that, for valid business reasons, the parent company disposes of the subsidiary via a bona fide ``spin-off'' transaction. At the time of the spin-off, the subsidiary was current on all of its required contributions to the multiemployer pension fund, and the subsidiary continues to make contributions to the multiemployer plan after the spin-off. To complete the example, assume that several years after the spin-off, the spun-off subsidiary goes out of business and ceases to make contributions to the multiemployer pension fund. Under this scenario, the MEPPA rules allow the pension fund to claim that a principal purpose of the transaction was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Because the MEPPA rules do not provide any time restrictions for making these claims, a former parent company may be forced to defend against such a claim years, if not decades after the transaction in question. By contrast, the single- employer plan rules provide a 5-year safe harbor rule that protects employers against such claims.

While multiemployer plans should certainly be able to pursue claims against unscrupulous employers, there are two procedural rules in MEPPA that severely and unfairly hinder an employer's ability to defend itself against a claim for withdrawal liability under the evade or avoid standard when the transaction in question occurred several years before the date of a complete or partial withdrawal. The first rule is referred to as the ``pay to play'' rule, and the second rule involves the burden of proof borne by the employer.

Under MEPPA, if the pension fund makes a claim for withdrawal liability against the former parent company under the ``evade or avoid'' standard, the claim is sent to arbitration. However, the parent company must begin making payments to the multiemployer pension plan within 60 days after receiving a demand solely based upon the plan's unilateral decision to assert a withdrawal liability claim and long before any neutral third party finds that ``a principal purpose'' of the challenged transaction was to ``evade or avoid'' withdrawal liability. As a result, a company that engaged in a bona fide business transaction many years before the withdrawal occurred is forced to begin paying on the claim based on nothing more than the plan's demand.

According to the legislative history, this unique ``pay to play'' rule was enacted in response to what Congress perceived to be inefficient, cumbersome and costly procedures for collecting delinquent contributions from employers. Simple collection actions were converted into complex litigation through defenses that were unrelated to the multiemployer plan's entitlement to the contribution. However, the relevant MEPPA language is not limited to collection actions. While it may be appropriate to require a contesting employer to commence payments while the claim is being litigated, it is not fair to require prepayment in the case of an ``evade or avoid'' claim when the transaction in question occurred many years before the complete or partial withdrawal occurred.

The second procedural unfairness involves the burden of proof that an employer faces in rebutting a claim under the ``evade or avoid'' standard. MEPPA provides that a plan sponsor's determination is presumed correct, unless the contesting party shows by a preponderance of evidence that the determination is incorrect. The impetus behind Congress's decision to include such a presumption was the need to avoid a perceived potential for conflict and delay over the soundness of actuarial determinations of liability. Specifically, the presumption was crafted in order to prevent ``the likelihood of dispute and delay over technical actuarial matters with respect to which there are often several equally `correct' approaches. Without such a presumption, a plan would be helpless to resist dilatory tactics by a withdrawing employer--tactics that could, and could be intended to, result in prohibitive collection costs to the plan.'' However, the MEPPA presumption language is not limited to actuarial determinations, but reaches liability determinations as well.

Even if this presumption is appropriate when withdrawal liability is triggered shortly after a transaction occurs, it is unfair to apply the presumption when the transaction in question occurred several years before the withdrawal took place. In this situation, a company that engages in a bona fide transaction may be forced to prove a negative-- namely that a principal purpose of a transaction that occurred many years ago was not to evade or avoid withdrawal liability.

To summarize, under the MEPPA rules, an employer may find itself in a position where it has to respond to claims regarding a legitimate business transaction that occurred many years earlier. Furthermore, in defending against the claim, the employer must 1. prove that a principal purpose of the transaction was not to evade or avoid withdrawal liability, and 2. prepay the contested amount of the liability well in advance of any final determination of liability. This is patently unfair. Our legislation is a modest attempt to inject some notions of procedural fairness in this situation.

Our bill does not change the present-law rules regarding the determination of liability with respect to a complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan. However, it does change the procedural rules applicable to such a determination, but only with respect to a transaction that occurred five years or more before the date of the complete or partial withdrawal.

Under our bill, when a determination of an employer's withdrawal liability is based on a finding by the plan sponsor that a principal purpose of a transaction was to evade or avoid liability, and the transaction in question occurred five years or more before the date of the complete or partial withdrawal, the following rules would apply: 1. the determination by the plan sponsor is not presumed to be correct, and the plan sponsor has the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, each and every element of the claim for withdrawal liability, and 2. if an employer contests the plan sponsor's determination either through arbitration or through a claim brought in court, the employer is not obligated to make any withdrawal liability payments until a final decision in the arbitration, or in court, upholds the plan sponsor's determination. Our bill would apply to any employer that receives a notification after October 31, 2003.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.