National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Amendments Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, more than 1.5 million of our servicemen and women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations. We have mobilized more than 630,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves, including 92,000 who are on active duty right now.

These service men and women have courageously defended our country overseas, but tens of thousands of them have come home to find that they have lost their employment benefits or even their jobs, and the Government has failed to defend their rights.

Today, Senator Daniel Akaka and I are introducing legislation to guarantee that veterans won't have to wait years for the Government to act to restore their benefits or return to work.

Thirteen years ago, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, specifically to protect our servicemembers when they return home. We understood that, to maintain strong focus and a strong National Guard and Reserves, servicemembers needed confidence that they could return to their civilian jobs when they came home from their tours of duty. That legislation was a clear promise that the Federal Government would step in and defend servicemembers who were wrongly denied their jobs or benefits. We pledged that the Department of Labor would investigate violations of the act, and that if employers refused to follow the law, the Attorney General would take employers to court to protect our servicemembers' rights.

Today, however, the administration has clearly broken that promise to enforce the law and get our veterans back to work.

Last month, during a Senate Committee hearing, I released a Department of Defense survey showing that for tens of thousands of veterans, their service to our country has cost them the salary they deserve, their health care, their pensions, or even their jobs. Among members of the Reserves and National Guard, nearly 11,000 were denied prompt reemployment. More than 22,000 lost seniority and rightful pay. Nearly 20,000 had their pensions reduced. More than 15,000 did not receive the training they needed to resume their former jobs. Nearly 11,000 did not get their health insurance back.

The problem is that employers aren't following the law, and Federal agencies aren't effectively enforcing it. Mr. President, 38 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor to defend their rights did not receive a prompt response. Servicemembers are forced to wait months or years even to find out whether the Government will agree to represent them and defend their rights. One veteran waited 7 years before the Department of Labor told him whether it would take his case to court. No veteran can afford to wait seven months to return to work or have his health insurance reinstated, let alone wait 7 years.

With these unbelievable delays, it is not surprising that 44 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor for help said that they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received. When servicemen and women hear about these delays, they ask themselves, ``Why should I even bother to ask for help.''

In fact, the Pentagon tells us that 77 percent of servicemembers whose rights are violated don't contact anyone to defend their rights. They simply give up. Nearly half of them say that they have no confidence that the Government will resolve their problems, or that it is just not worth the effort.

Even worse, a quarter of them don't even know where they can go for help. It is beyond dispute that the administration has broken its promise to help them.

Our veterans deserve better than this. They deserve to know that their Government is working as quickly as possible to get them back to work and restore their benefits.

The current law needs reform as well. It makes no sense to have four different agencies tracking the problems of our servicemembers in four different ways. We also need to know whether disabled veterans are being properly assisted in making their own difficult transition back to work.

It is time for the administration to keep its promise, and end the long delays for veterans who need help in defending their rights. The bill that Senator Akaka and I are introducing imposes timely and reasonable deadlines on Federal agencies to investigate complaints, to attempt to resolve them, and, if necessary, to refer them for litigation.

The legislation also makes the Federal enforcement of the law more transparent and responsive to the needs of veterans. It assures veterans that they won't have to wait years for an answer about whether they will receive the help they deserve.

By imposing timely deadlines on the Federal agencies, we are also stepping up the pressure on employers that violate the rights of our brave soldiers. With these new deadlines, employers won't be able to drag their heels as the Department of Labor spends months or years investigating violations. They will know that they have to settle each veteran's case quickly and fairly, or else face the U.S. Government in court.

The legislation also implements a number of reforms recommended by the Government Accountability Office--reforms that have received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. In particular, our bill requires agencies to gather and report information on these cases in a uniform manner, so that we can understand trends and better address the needs of each servicemember. Agencies will also be required to report on cases involving veterans with disabilities, so that we have accurate information on the reemployment problems of our wounded soldiers.

Enacting this legislation alone obviously won't end the job discrimination that too many servicemembers face when they come home. But it will certainly improve the assistance they receive in obtaining the help they have earned and deserve.

Our legislation has the support of the Nation's largest veterans' organization, the American Legion, which emphasizes that the ``enforcement of veterans' employment and reemployment rights . . . can only be achieved through aggressive oversight and timely investigation.'' This legislation, the American Legion says, will ``strengthen veterans' employment and reemployment rights'' by imposing ``timely, realistic deadlines on Federal agencies to process'' their claims. We are proud to have the American Legion's support for this legislation.

We know we can never truly repay our veterans for their immense sacrifices. They have fought hard for our country, and it is up to us to fight just as hard for them when they return home to the heroes' welcome they so justly deserve. An important part of that welcome is keeping the promise that we made to them to protect their employment rights when they return.

That is what this legislation seeks to do, and I urge my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Finance Committee will meet to consider legislation to reauthorize the vitally important State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP. The legislation that comes through committee will represent this Congress's first opportunity to make a loud and clear statement regarding the importance of children's health as a national priority.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I am focused on one goal: to insure each and everyone of the 11 million kids under the age of 21 who are uninsured today, while making sure that no other kids slip through the cracks. The first bill I introduced in this Congress, S. 95, the Kids Come First Act, would accomplish just that.

Because the Bush administration and previous Republican Congresses have played fast and loose with our Nation's finances, today we face an enormous budget deficit. The unfortunate reality is that we may not be able to accomplish all of the goals set forth in Kids

Come First. But the Democratic Congress is committed to doing everything in our power to expand health coverage to children this year.

Much of our efforts will be focused on S-CHIP reauthorization. But there are additional steps we can take to begin to address this problem. The Small Business Children's Health Education Act, which I am introducing today with Senator Snowe, represents one of those steps.

In February of 2007, the Urban Institute reported that among those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, children whose families are self-employed or who work for small business concerns are far less likely to be enrolled. Specifically, one out of every four eligible children with parents who work for a small business or who are self-employed are not enrolled. This statistic compares with just 1 out of every 10 eligible children whose parents work for a large firm.

We need to do a better job of informing and educating America's small business owners and employees of the options that may be available for covering uninsured children. To that effect, the Small Business Children's Health Education Act creates an intergovernmental task force, consisting of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct a campaign to enroll kids of small business employees who are eligible for S-CHIP and Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. To educate America's small businesses on the availability of S-CHIP and Medicaid, the task force is authorized to make use of the Small Business Administration's business partners, including the Service Corps of Retired Executives, the Small Business Development Centers, Certified Development Companies, and Women's Business Centers, and is authorized to enter into memoranda of understanding with chambers of commerce across the country.

Additionally, the Small Business Administration is directed to post S-CHIP and Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment information on its website, and to report back to the Senate and House Committees on Small Business regarding the status and successes of the task force's efforts to enroll eligible kids.

If you believe that we should be doing everything in our power to get every kid in this country insured, then this proposal is a no-brainer. It is estimated that 6 million of the 9 million uninsured children living in the United States are currently eligible for S-CHIP and Medicaid. These are kids who already meet the criteria for coverage, we just need to get the word to their parents and to their parents' employers that they are eligible. Ultimately, this is about priorities. I believe that the richest country on earth should not rest until all of our children are as safe and as healthy as they can possibly be. I thank Senator Snowe for our longstanding partnership on issues critical to America's small business owners, and for her work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Snowe in once again introducing the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007. This legislation will establish mental health care parity in the Medicare Program.

Medicare currently requires patients to pay a 20 percent copayment for all Part B services except mental health care services, for which patients are assessed a 50 percent copayment. Thus, under the current system, if a Medicare patient sees an endocrinologist for diabetes treatment, an oncologist for cancer treatment, a cardiologist for heart disease treatment or an internist for treatment of the flu, the copayment is 20 percent of the cost of the visit. If, however, a Medicare patient visits a psychiatrist for treatment of mental illness, the copayment is 50 percent of the cost of the visit. This disparity in outpatient copayment represents blatant discrimination against Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness.

The prevalence of mental illness in older adults is considerable. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, 20 percent of older adults in the community and 40 percent of older adults in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression, while as many as one out of every two residents in nursing homes are at risk of depression. The elderly have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S., and there is a clear correlation between major depression and suicide: 60 to 75 percent of suicides among patients 75 and older have diagnosable depression. In addition to our seniors, hundreds of thousands of nonelderly disabled Medicare beneficiaries become Medicare-eligible by virtue of severe and persistent mental disorders. To subject the mentally disabled to discriminatory costs in coverage for the very conditions for which they became Medicare eligible is illogical and unfair.

There is ample evidence that mental illness can be treated. Unfortunately, among the general population, those in need for treatment often do not seek it because they are ashamed of their condition. Among our Medicare population, the mentally ill face a double burden: not only must they overcome the stigma about their illness, but once they seek treatment they must pay one-half of the cost of care out of their own pocket. The Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will provide for the reduction of the coinsurance rate for outpatient mental health services over a 6-year period. By applying the same 20 percent copayment rate to mental health services to which all other outpatient services are subjected, the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will bring parity to the Medicare Program and improve access to care for our senior and disabled beneficiaries who are living with mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1239, the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act. I introduced this legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

The widespread bipartisan support this legislation has received with 67 cosponsors and endorsement by the National Parks Conservation Association has demonstrated that black history is synonymous with American history as life experience shared by all citizens of America.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Don Young of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor, and I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the subcommittee chairman, and his counterpart, Representative Rob Bishop, for their support. And my congratulations to Mrs. McMorris Rodgers on her recent addition to her family and her finding time to come and support this legislation as well.

With passage of this legislation, I hope that the National Park Service will give the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom its due priority with adequate staffing to maintain the growing network. Toward that end, I would also like to thank the staff of the respective committees who helped to expedite this matter.

Mr. Speaker, when I joined my esteemed former colleague, as did many other Members, and the person to whom I am referring is Representative Lou Stokes, in 1998, he led the effort to establish the National Underground Railroad to Freedom. I don't think any of us could have foreseen the emergence of the National Park Service as one of the largest stewards of black history in the United States. Nor could we have predicted the rapidly expanding support and interest for one of the most intriguing multicultural collaborations in the history of our Nation.

The Network to Freedom is a key feature that diversifies engagement in interpretive opportunities of our National Park System. It has grown to 300 programs, sites, and partners in 28 States and the District of Columbia. This network is a national treasure of historic buildings, routes, programs, projects, and museums with thematic connections to the Underground Railroad.

The legislation before us today appropriately adjusts the authorization levels for the Network to Freedom to reflect the growth of interest nationally, and the resulting expansion of opportunities. These adjustments will help to resolve the financial challenges facing the Network to Freedom that include the lack of consistent development grants and administrative support for affiliates.

Mr. Speaker, this bill protects the interpretive interests of our National Park System by providing the necessary support staff and oversight for

the Network to Freedom to exist in perpetuity. It is time to take a stand for the future of our national parks and American history.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and preserve a vital asset to the history of our Nation, the Underground Railroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1239, the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act. I introduced this legislation in February with my good friend Representative Castle of Delaware as one contribution to the celebration of Black History Month.

The widespread bi-partisan support this legislation has received with 67 cosponsors and endorsement by the National Parks Conservation Association has demonstrated that Black history is synonymous with American history as a life experience shared by all citizens of America.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and Representative Rob Bishop for their support and minor adjustments to this legislation to meet the needs of the National Park Service administration. With passage of this legislation, I hope that the National Park Service will give the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom its due priority with adequate staffing to maintain the growing network.

Mr. Speaker, when I joined my esteemed former colleague Representative Louis Stokes in 1998 to establish the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, I do not think we could have foreseen the emergence of the National Park Service as one of the largest stewards of black history in the United Sates. Nor could we have predicted the rapidly expanding support and interest for one of the most intriguing multicultural collaborations in the history of our Nation.

In this polarized historical moment of American politics, remembering the Underground Railroad as a unifying narrative in our history could not be timelier. The sacrifice at the risk of death made by conductors and travelers of the Underground Railroad was an unprecedented contribution to the abolition of slavery. The contributors to this network included the members of the Society of Religious Friends, commonly referred to as the Quakers, as well as other concerned individuals. Thus, the Underground Railroad was one of the first synergistic partnerships that fostered the development of the thriving multicultural society that is the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Network to Freedom is a key feature that diversifies engagement in interpretive opportunities of our national park system. It has grown to 300 programs, sites, and partners in 28 states and the District of Columbia. This network is a national treasure of historic buildings, routes, programs, projects, and museums with thematic connections to the Underground Railroad.

The legislation before us today appropriately adjusts authorization levels for the Network to Freedom to reflect the growth of interest nationally and the resulting expansion of opportunities. As a part of a concerted movement to overcome the funding challenges that threaten all national parks, this legislation moderately expands the operating funds of Network to Freedom to an authorization for appropriations up to $2 million and establishes appropriate oversight for grant funds. These adjustments will help to resolve the financial challenges facing the Network to Freedom that include the lack of consistent development grants and administrative support for affiliates.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect the interpretive interests of our National Park System by providing the necessary support staff and oversight for the Network to Freedom to exist in perpetuity. It is time to take a stand for the future of our National Parks and American history.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and join me in preserving a vital asset to the history of our Nation: the Underground Railroad.

Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, NH, middle school students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I rise to honor a fallen hero, U.S. Army Ranger CAPT Jonathan David Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.

Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School, where his mother, Patricia, is principal.

Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, NH, where he was a 4-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, commitment to the academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and the school's Washington internship program.

Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelors degree in computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.

At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of volunteerism and service to the U.S. Jon's father, Mark, proudly served 3\1/2\ years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, West Point alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the Johns Hopkins Army ROTC program, and eventually becoming battalion commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.

In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC cadet from Boxborough MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a questionnaire for their officiate, which asked, ``Where is a sacred spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''

Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to the 7th Cavalry in the Republic of South Korea and served as a member of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.

Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a second tour of duty, in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, and Parachutist Badge.

Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose poise under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders from Hampstead and Exeter, NH, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly served beside in Iraq.

On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for our Nation.

Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Emerald Ash Borer Municipality Assistance Act of 2007, a bill designed to help local units of government manage the costs of combating this pernicious invasive pest species.

Although some of my colleagues in the Senate may not have heard of the Emerald Ash Borer, it is a destructive pest that poses a significant threat to our forests and urban and residential landscapes.

Some of my colleagues are all too familiar with the destructive power of EAB because of the speed with which it can move from State to State and the extensive damage it can cause to a State's ash tree population. Before this species was discovered in Illinois, I had been following its deadly march across the Midwest and had discussed the dangers of EAB with my colleagues from Michigan and Indiana.

The emerald-green beetle was most likely brought to North America in solid wood packing material from Asia about 10 years ago. Our new flat world means that in addition to improved global communications and more foreign trade and foreign travel, we are also witnessing the international movement of bugs like this beetle.

The beetle was first discovered in Michigan in 2002. Since then, the beetle has killed 20 million of the State's more than 700 million ash trees. Since then, the beetle has been found in Indiana, Ohio, and Maryland. The tiny beetle kills with astonishing speed. During the mating season, the ash borer lays its larva under the bark of the ash trees. When they hatch, hundreds of these beetles feed on the inner bark of the ash tree, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients through the tree.

Within 2 to 3 years of introduction, the beetles will destroy a host ash tree and spread. Each beetle has a half mile flying range, widening the beetle's infestation every year in expanding concentric circles. The beetle is also spread artificially and often unknowingly by campers and others who transport ash firewood and thus introduce the beetle to new environments.

Managing this deadly beetle is a significant challenge. At an average cost of $500 per tree removal and a couple of hundred dollars to replant a tree to maintain forest and urban canopies, this bug presents a serious economic impact on our communities. Additional costs are incurred for equipment, marshalling yards, and survey activities.

While the Federal Government administers a national EAB program through USDA-APHIS, many of the costs of managing EAB are borne by municipalities and homeowners. For example, the city of Woodridge, IL, a town of 30,000, is home to 8,000 public trees, 25 percent of which are ash. If the Emerald Ash Borer were to infest the public-owned ash trees of Woodridge, the cost of removing and replanting Woodridge's trees would be about $1.8 million.

One of the missing pieces in the Federal Emerald Ash Borer, EAB, Program is a mechanism to help municipalities defray the costs of performing EAB prevention duties normally performed by the Federal Government. These costs include managing the EAB population by surveying trees, removing infested trees, and replacing removed trees. The expenses associated with these activities include purchasing bucket trucks, tub grinders, and replacement trees and renting or leasing space for marshalling yards.

The legislation would create a low-interest revolving loan fund for communities for the purchase of capital equipment and replacement trees within quarantine areas. Communities would have a 20-year window to repay the loan. In addition, the bill would allow states to contract with local units of government to perform EAB duties.

Ash trees are among the most commonly found trees in our forests and urban canopies. Wisconsin is home to more than 700 million of them. They make up 20 percent of the tree population of beautiful Madison, WI. The beetle threatens billions of ash trees in North America. Losing our ash trees would incur costs that are difficult to measure. Homeowners deeply love their trees and value the shade and aesthetic beauty they add. Ash trees are a part of our wildlife habitat and diverse environment.

In my State of Illinois, the beetle has been found in multiple locations, in several parts of both Kane County and Cook County. Experts say that unchecked, this beetle could threaten ash trees nationwide on a scale equal to the Dutch Elm Disease, which destroyed more than half of the elm trees in the northern United States.

It is a problem of significant magnitude and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to control and eradicate the Emerald Ash Borer.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007. This measure is intended to make substantial improvements in the manner in which claims made under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994--USERRA--are processed and to help ensure that individuals' complaints are addressed in a prompt and efficient manner.

Our troops are returning home from battle, and many of them seek to return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. USERRA, which is set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, U.S. Code, provides these servicemembers with certain protections. USERRA also sets out certain responsibilities for employers, including to reemploy returning veterans in their previous jobs.

As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held two hearings earlier this year on issues relating to veterans' employment, including one focusing exclusively on the pilot project for processing USERRA claims in the Federal sector and the jurisdictional questions involving the Department of Labor and the Office of Special Counsel. I must admit to being particularly upset with the volume of USERRA claims related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who were sent to war by their Government should, upon their return, be put in the position of having to do battle with that same Government in order to regain their jobs and benefits.

Out of those hearings, and an oversight hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, we have learned a great deal about the manner in which USERRA claims are investigated, resolved, or referred to other appropriate entities for enforcement actions. By and large, the process is seamless and frequently involves employer education in terms of helping them understand their obligations under the law. Still too often, many claims are quite complicated and involve what are sometimes called ``escalator claims,'' where an individual is seeking to be re-instated in a position with quite complicated benefits, seniority, health care and fiduciary issues. I believe that anytime an individual is denied their USERRA rights is one time too many. However, I understand that the confusion and misunderstanding that can exist for the employer-- particularly a small employer or one who may only have one employee who is a member of the Guard or reserve--can be frustrating.

The legislation we are introducing today seeks to establish reasonable time frames for the USERRA process. When veterans turn to the government to protect their employment rights, they deserve solutions, not delays. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the federal government in protecting the employment rights of veterans.

Our legislation would, in brief, require those filing complaints to be notified within 5 days of the establishment of a claim, require that complaints be investigated and a decision made with respect to the need for further referral within 90 days, and require prompt referral to other agencies. The Government Accountability Office would be required to submit quarterly reports on the processing of claims. Finally, data collected by the Employers' Support of the Guard and Reserve, a voluntary organization within the Department of Defense, would be required to be included in the Secretary of Labor's annual report on USERRA. With respect to this ESRG reporting requirement, it should be noted that this provision has already passed both bodies in the context of the pending conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, and it is included here in the event that legislation is not enacted.

I stress that our goal is to improve the current process. We want in no way to place strictures on the program that might result in less than satisfactory consideration and pursuit of claims. I intend to pursue the concerns of all of those involved in these claims--the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Justice, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of the Special Counsel--through the legislative process in the next session. Should the need for refinements in the measure as it is introduced today become apparent, they will be carefully considered. I know that the Senator from Massachusetts will join me in that endeavor.

Mr. President, today I rise for the purpose of introducing important legislation for the moral and fiscal posture of our great Nation: the Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities of 2007.

While there are obvious differences of opinion on the state of the U.S. economy, the U.S. workforce is experiencing relatively low unemployment rates. The average hourly wage and payroll employment levels are at an all-time high. As our economy has experienced a slow and steady rise, there is one sector of the population who has been left behind.

The unemployment rate for the severely disabled is higher than it has ever been. Despite previous efforts to increase employment opportunities for this population, the rate of unemployment has risen to 70 percent, that means increasing the amount of citizens relying on Social Security disability insurance.

In 1982, the amount of payments distributed through Social Security disability insurance was $15.8 billion. In 2004, that number climbed to $80.6 billion. According to a forecast by the Social Security trustees, the old age and survivors insurance trust fund will last until 2044, while the disability trust fund will be exhausted in 2029.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 as a means of leveling the playing field for citizens with disabilities. And while it has provided necessary reforms in employment practices, this legislation has had little to no effect on the rate of unemployment experienced by individuals with severe disabilities.

Even government-run programs such as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act or Randolph Shepard Act, have done little to improve this high unemployment rate. As our brave men and women serving in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan return, this problem will be compounded. Many of our troops have been disabled in the cause of protecting this country, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that there are opportunities for them in the workforce so that they can regain a semblance of their lives back.

It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. The goal should be to create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government operated programs.

The Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, a bipartisan bill authored by Senator Kennedy and myself, creates these opportunities while reducing dependence on Social Security disability insurance. This legislation gives government contract procurement advantages to those companies who employ significant percentages of individuals with disabilities in their workforce.

Our goal is to employ at least 1 percent of individuals with severe disabilities, or 94,000 people. In doing this, we have the opportunity to save approximately $45 billion in Social Security disability insurance over the next 10 years.

I know firsthand how important individuals with severe disabilities are to our workforce. In my home State of Kansas, persons like my good friend, Pat Terick, play an important role in local business. His agency, the Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas, has long advocated the importance of creating job opportunities for the severely disabled. This advocacy group, located in Wichita, is dedicated to showing companies the advantages of hiring individuals with disabilities. Our bill will be a powerful incentive for businesses to enhance their workforce.

I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. Special thanks to my longtime friend and to a great Kansan and American, Senator Bob Dole, cochair of the One Percent Coalition. With Bob's remarkable devotion to disability advocacy, it comes as no surprise that he is leading the effort to increase job opportunities for those individuals with severe disabilities.

It is time for a change in the way we think about employing individuals with severe disabilities. We must create job opportunities for the severely disabled in the national workforce, not just in government-operated programs. With the support of my colleagues, this legislation will do just that.