Employer Work Incentive Act for Individuals with Severe Disabilities

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Underground Railroad Network Reauthorization Act of 2007. The original act, signed into law in 1998, has increased public awareness of the Underground Railroad, a cornerstone in African-American heritage and history, with sites and programs in 28 States and the

District of Columbia. This is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation and dissemination of underground railroad history. I am pleased that we are joined in this effort by Senators Alexander, Carper, Cardin, Cochran, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin and Obama.

Throughout this Nation there are sites in the underground railroad network that, while still standing, have suffered structural damage. There are also many sites that no longer house a physical structure, but still are important to recognize. A good example is the Thomas Garrett House, located in Wilmington in my home State of Delaware. The Garrett House was the last station on the Underground Railroad before the slaves reached freedom in Pennsylvania. It has been estimated that Garrett, a well known Quaker, helped more than 2,000 runaway slaves escape from the Southern States. The legislation being introduced today will not only help pay to repair damaged structures, but also to educate the general public about those sites that are no longer in existence, like the Thomas Garrett House.

The underground railroad network is a special part of American history that we cannot afford to let slip away. This legislation will preserve these invaluable memorials and educational resources by raising the authorization level from $500,000 to $2.5 million. We must move now to ensure that the brave acts of these individuals are preserved for future generations to observe and honor.

A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Representatives, H.R. 1239, by Representative Alcee L. Hastings and my friend and colleague from Delaware, Representative Mike Castle. I hope both Chambers move quickly to preserve this precious history.

It is my honor to ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join me today in supporting this bill so that this part of our Nation's past will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar.

The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy.

Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities.

And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug.

More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity.

Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong.

We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage.

Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair.

There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue.

As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.''

A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.''

This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform.

The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment.

My bill implements all of these recommendations.

Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.

It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs.

My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources.

Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

Mr. President, agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry. According to 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, statistics, the market value of all agriculture production in PA was approximately $7,026,739,000. Further, dairy is the number one sector of our agriculture industry. In 2005, Pennsylvania dairy farmers produced 10.5 billion pounds of milk from 558,000 cows on approximately 9,000 dairy farms. In 2004, milk production in PA contributed about $1,770,912,000 to the economy.

I have consistently fought for Pennsylvania's dairy producers since taking office in 1981. Last year, I fought to ensure the viability of the dairy industry by ensuring that the Senate Budget Committee opposed the administration's fiscal year 2007 proposals that would have been detrimental to our Nation's dairy farmers. I, along with 16 other Senators, wrote a letter on March 8, 2006, to the Senate Budget Committee urging rejection of the proposed budget cuts and tax increases on America's dairy farmers that included: 1. reducing the value of the price support program; 2. cutting Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, payments by 5 percent; and 3. taxing every dairy farmer in America 3 cents per hundredweight, cwt., on all production. We were successful in this fight to protect Pennsylvania's, and the Nation's, dairy producers.

Also, I, along with five other Senators, requested that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, review the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, cash cheese market because the price of cheese is strongly correlated to the price of milk. The GAO is expected to have a final report in the near future. This report will help us set legislative priorities by giving us a better understanding of the CME cheese market and its relation to the price of milk.

Even though milk production in Pennsylvania had a market value of $1,770,912,000 in 2004, dairy farmers across PA and the Nation experienced decreased prices of milk from November of 2005 until early this year. Our dairy producers should not be receiving decreased milk prices, especially with the increased costs of production, such as fuel, feed, and fertilizer.

These unpredictable fluctuations in the price of milk paid to our dairy farmers place an undue financial burden on our producers, which in turn negatively impact our rural communities. As a result, I worked hard with Senators Santorum, Chambliss, Kohl, and Leahy to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program until September of 2007. The MILC program was created as part of the 2002 farm bill to provide supplemental payments to dairy farmers when the market price falls below a statutory trigger. This program has provided timely and crucial payments to producers, particularly when prices were low in 2002, 2003, and 2006. Although milk prices are expected to be above the statutory trigger price of $16.94 through 2007, we need to ensure a more stable milk pricing system.

The 2007 farm bill creates an opportunity to address the current volatile milk pricing system. While many legislative measures have been proposed, it is essential that any program address costs of production, ensure market and price transparency, and provide a safety-net for our producers. Additionally, we need to provide dairy producers with tools to help them should milk prices fall below sustainable levels, such as a voluntary revenue insurance program.

I, along with Senator Bob Casey, have worked with our constituents to propose two dairy legislative proposals to ensure that we continue to discuss America's milk pricing system and the need for change in the 2007 farm bill. I have met with dairy producers from across the Commonwealth and there is a broad consensus that the unpredictable milk pricing system needs to be addressed. The hard part is coming to a consensus on how to reform the system. Although these two legislative proposals may not be perfect, they provide ideas on assuring an equitable milk price for our dairy producers.

The first bill that we are introducing is the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the number of classes of milk from four to two with the intent of simplifying the pricing of milk. The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the price of all milk used for manufacturing purposes, which will be classified as Class II milk, by using the national average cost of production. This price would then be the basis formula for calculating the price of Class I milk, which is fluid milk. Although costs of production can vary drastically farm by farm, this legislation would ensure that dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk based on a national average cost of production figure.

Costs of production for dairy farmers all across America have increased, not

just in one region. Fuel, feed, and fertilizer costs have more than doubled. Only recently has the price of milk paid to farmers reached higher than the MILC program trigger price of $16.94 per cwt. With the price of milk above this target price, no payments to farmers will be made, even though input costs have more than doubled. Addressing costs of production is necessary to ensure that our family dairy farmers survive.

The second bill that we have introduced aims to promote growth and opportunity for the dairy industry. This bill would change the current MILC program to a Milk Target Price Program and would link payments to dairy farmers on Class III milk. The program would pay farmers when the price of Class III falls below $12.00 per hundredweight. This trigger price would be adjusted by a feed adjustment factor to reflect the feed cost of producing 100 pounds of milk. The USDA would determine this factor based on a feed price index using a baseline period of calendar years 2001 through 2005.

Further, the second bill would require the mandatory reporting of dairy commodities by requiring that dairy prices be reported on a daily and weekly basis. The current system is not mandatory and it is estimated that dairy farmers lost $6.4 million due to a Federal reporting error by the USDA over the past nine months. Along with 10 other Senators, I sent a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on May 9, 2007, requesting an explanation on how this misreporting occurred. This bill aims to close any loops in current law and assure proper auditing, data verification, and enforcement of reporting in order to ensure a transparent dairy market.

Finally, the second bill would provide authorization for a Federal dairy education loan forgiveness program. This would allow students at higher education institutions across America who focus on agriculture for a 2- or 4-year degree and become a full-time owner of a farm to become eligible to have their Federal student loans forgiven. This is aimed to ensure that there is a younger generation of farmers to work the lands across the fields in America.

Both of these bills aim to help our family dairy farms who deserve a fair price for their milk. I am committed to Pennsylvania's dairy farmers and will continue to work with my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Casey, and all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure our dairy farmers are not left behind. As more ideas and solutions are proposed, I will consider each and every one. Debate is important to finding a solution to any problem.

Farmers and rural America are the backbone of our great country. Every day, they work the fields, milk the cows, herd the cattle, and pick the produce. I myself grew up in rural Kansas and at the age of 14, I worked for Clyde Mills, father of my close friend and high school classmate Steve, driving a tractor in the wheat fields, providing lessons on the difficulties of working on a farm.

Agriculture is crucial to Pennsylvania and to the entire nation. We need to ensure that the next farm bill provides all our fanners with the assistance they need to overcome hardships, as well as providing our rural communities the financial and technical assistance they need to assure a vibrant and stable rural economy. Even though I voted against final passage of the 2002 farm bill because it disproportionately provided more Federal funds to other states and regions in the U.S., I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and my colleagues in the full Senate to ensure farmers across America are equitably treated when it comes to Federal agricultural programs and assistance.

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. 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, 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.