Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2011

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will stop businesses from deducting costs that result from their misconduct as a cost of doing business under our tax laws. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of a punitive damage award paid to a victim as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is wrong. It undermines one of the primary deterrent functions of our civil justice system, and American taxpayers should not subsidize this misconduct.

Punitive damage awards serve in part to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Our legal history contains prominent examples of corporate misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and by virtue of our civil justice system was not only punished, but led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. The justice system has and will continue to encourage the positive changes that cannot be brought about by regulation alone. But our current tax laws work against the well-established role of the justice system as a backstop to health and safety regulation.

One year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 Americans and leading to the worst oil spill in American history. Just over a year ago, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In both of these cases, I expect that all Americans, and particularly the family members of the victims, would be shocked to learn that any punitive damages that may result from these events will amount to a tax break for the corporations responsible.

I was disgusted to learn that Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, recently announced that it was giving ``safety bonuses'' to its executives. Maybe that company believes that the American people have forgotten about this tragedy. I have met with the families of the 11 men killed, and I will never forget them. The tax treatment that the responsible companies will receive if we do not act will just add insult to injury.

Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989. I have chaired several hearings on Exxon's misconduct, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. A jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions, which devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. For more than a decade Exxon fought this measure of accountability all the way to the United States Supreme Court. A divided Supreme Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages. I support Senator Whitehouse's wise legislation to overturn that Supreme Court decision, but some in Congress do not want corporate accountability. If we cannot muster the votes to make corporations that engage in such extreme misconduct accountable, we need to at least stop subsidizing it through our tax laws.

Like so many Americans, I am weary of the preferential treatment that large corporations obtain at virtually every turn. It is disheartening to hear reports about enormously profitable corporations paying lower income tax rates than middle class American workers by exploiting loopholes or sheltering profits in foreign countries. It is unconscionable that big oil companies continue to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars each year, especially when Americans are facing increasingly high gasoline prices. I share the frustration of so many Americans who are making great sacrifices, yet who are not seeing their sacrifices shared by the most powerful in our society. As we approach the national tax filing deadline, I expect most Americans would agree that this punitive damages tax deduction is not only bad tax policy, but offensive to our basic notions of justice and fair play.

In his fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations, President Obama and his administration requested an end to this deduction in the tax code. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so will result in increased revenues of $315 million over 10 years. As we collectively work to reduce the Federal deficit, it is important to recognize that increasing revenues will play an important part in this effort; particularly when those revenues are lost to a policy that is without any defensible justification.

I hope all Senators will join me to protect American taxpayers. This legislation should be part of our bipartisan fight to reduce the national debt. When corporate wrongdoers can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. These difficult financial times require us to close irresponsible tax loopholes. We can start with this one, which treats corporate misconduct as a cost of doing business.

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

Mr. President, today, the Nation commemorates Equal Pay Day, an annual occasion that celebrates the gains that women have made in the workplace over the last century, but which also reminds us all that pay discrimination still exists in the United States. In today's economy, a troubling constant remains: women continue to earn less than men. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, women working full-time still make only 78 cents for every dollar working men receive. For minority women, this statistic becomes even more sobering.

The U.S. Department of Labor also reports an increasing number of families where women are the head of the household, and correspondingly, the primary source of income. Despite the signs of economic recovery, many women and families continue to struggle to make ends meet. This issue is not one that just impacts one individual; it creates additional economic hardship for entire families. Vermont is a leader in the Nation on fair pay practices, and 8 years ago, the State acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits compensating women and

men differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements, and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. Still, there is room for improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Vermont women working full-time earn wages amounting to 81.9 percent of what men earn. We must work harder to ensure that women are paid equal wages for equal work, across the country.

The 1963 Equal Pay Act was enacted to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. While we have made progress, our work is not done. Hardworking women--and the American people--earned a long fought victory in early 2009, when President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision that rolled back years of progress to eliminate workplace discrimination. But the efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace continues.

Two bills introduced today will help the United States reach that goal. These bills include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski and which I am proud to cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law; strengthens penalties for equal pay violations; and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support over a year ago, and deserves action in the Senate. The Fair Pay Act, which was introduced by Senator Harkin and which I am also proud to cosponsor, requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions, and to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap.

Equal pay for equal work is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue; it is an American value. It is neither a private sector nor a public sector issue; it is a fundamental issue of fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one career path or level of education. The Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act, and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters, and all future generations of Americans, are not subject to the same discrimination that has plagued women for decades.

Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few minutes about an incident that is unfolding in Arkansas, and that I am sure is unfolding in other States as well.

Less than 2 weeks ago, a 73-year-old woman and her husband received a letter from FEMA, where FEMA demanded that this couple pay back $27,000 in FEMA assistance they had received 3 years earlier, and that they do so within 30 days or face penalties, interest, et cetera. Well, this was devastating news for her. These are Social Security recipients. They lost everything in a flood.

But let me back up and tell the full story, and then tell the rest of the story. Three years ago, Arkansas had some floods on the White River, and the folks in the Mountain View area, some of them, experienced very severe flooding. FEMA actually came to this couple's house, walked around, and told them on the spot they were eligible to receive FEMA assistance for the flooding. The maximum you can receive is $30,000. So they filled out the paperwork.

In fact, FEMA helped them do some of that, like I said, on the spot, while FEMA was visiting their home and looking at their property. FEMA assured her they would qualify for this assistance. So they filled out the paperwork and they went through the process.

Apparently, at some point, there was even an appeal or some sort of clarification. So it went through the proper channels at FEMA. Remember, FEMA was there, they took pictures, and the whole deal. They verified the damage. So this couple received $27,000 in FEMA assistance.

They put every dime back into their home. This is a couple who basically lost almost all their worldly possessions in this flood. I talked to her a week or so ago, and she told me they were able to save a few items of glassware and a few keepsakes from the family, but basically everything was either washed away in the water or so caked with mud it was ruined during the flood. The $27,000 helped repair their home and make it habitable, but it didn't restore their home anywhere close to the condition it was before the flood. This was their dream home--their retirement home. They live right there on the White River. It is a beautiful part of the State.

So they got this letter a couple of weeks ago. Now, bear in mind this flood happened 3 years ago--the flood happened 3 years ago--and they are now required, under the rules and regs and the law that FEMA works with, to pay all this money back. As I said before, this is a terrible hardship.

As it turns out, what happened is these folks, although they were assured by FEMA they were eligible, they were actually never qualified to receive this money. They didn't know that. They had FEMA in their living room telling them they were qualified and they should receive the money; that they met all the tests and standards and that is what this program was for, to help people like them. However, there was one technicality, and that was that the county in which they lived had not passed an ordinance to go into the FEMA flood insurance program. Here, again, FEMA should have known this.

FEMA apparently went to some of the county meetings where it was discussed and voted down. But, nonetheless, FEMA assured these people they would be covered under this program.

The irony of all this is that the couple, when they bought their home on the White River, one of the preconditions or requirements they set for themselves was they would purchase flood insurance. They had it for a number of years. They paid premiums for a number of years. They never experienced a flood, but they paid premiums for a number of years.

Finally, the insurance company that offered the flood insurance got out of the business, and so they even went to the extent of going through Lloyds of London to get flood insurance. They paid a lot of money for a premium, but they, nonetheless, carried that as long as it was offered. Finally, it wasn't offered any longer, and the only thing left was the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. But because the county had not done what they were supposed to do, this couple, therefore, was not eligible to receive the FEMA flood money--again, no fault of their own. They had done everything anybody could do. They had paid their premiums out of their pockets as long as they could, as long as they could find insurance, and as that was canceled over the years, the county hadn't come through. But, apparently, FEMA was actually there at the county meetings and knew, or should have known, this couple wasn't eligible. Yet they gave her this money, and now they want it all back with penalties and interest, et cetera.

So I have filed the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act, and we actually have it in two forms. We have it as a stand-alone measure, and we also have it as an amendment to the bill that is pending on the floor right now.

The important point of this story is that all of the mistakes that were made were on FEMA's side of the equation. The couple in Arkansas made no mistakes. They followed the rules, went through the process, went through the hearings. There is no allegation of fraud or that the couple in any way misled anyone. They gave them the documents and did everything they were supposed to do. It was textbook. They did everything they were supposed to do, but FEMA is now coming back and asking for recoupment.

So our bill will not give a blanket exception, but what it will do is give the FEMA Administrator the authority, under circumstances he deems fit, to waive the debt that is owed to the United States in cases where funds were distributed by a FEMA error, as in this case. Also, it gives them the discretion that they do not have under current Federal law.

I met with Director Fugate on this a week or two ago, and actually we had a very constructive meeting. I think probably on a personal level he understands this. He feels bad about this. But he believes his hands are tied under the statute. I am not 100 percent sure they are but he says they are. He tried to be very helpful, very accommodating. I think he does want to work with all the parties involved to try to clean this up. But he says he does not have the authority.

That is where this bill comes in. We wish to give the FEMA Director the authority to have some discretion on some of these hardship type cases, especially where the person who received the benefit did it purely by a FEMA error. Again, in their case, they put every dime of their recovery back into their home to have it livable. Otherwise they probably would have had to abandon their home or sell the property or whatever the case may have been.

That is what we are asking of the Senate, if they would consider this at the proper time. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. My guess is, since we have 35 households in our State that are receiving these types of letters from FEMA, these demand letters where they are giving a notice of debt to folks who have received money, my guess is if we have 35 in our State there are hundreds and maybe thousands around the country in a similar situation.

Again, our bill is just for FEMA's mistakes. This is probably an example

of the cleanup from the previous FEMA administration. I think Director Fugate had nothing to do with this. It took them 3 years because there was a lawsuit in the meantime.

What this is doing is creating a hardship for folks who had been playing by the rules. It gives FEMA the flexibility to do some of the cleanup in a way that doesn't harm ordinary citizens here in the United States. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. I would be pleased to answer any questions. If anyone has those, they can always contact me in my office. What I wish to do is not call it up at this point or anything like that but maybe be in the queue and be available at sometime in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2011. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, known as RECA, was first passed in 1990 after years of work and litigation. The act was later improved in 2000 through amendments made by Congress, and today I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Bennet, Crapo, Mark Udall, and Risch, to once again improve the act through introduction of this legislation.

This bill honors the individuals who unwittingly gave their health and even their lives to national efforts to develop uranium and a Cold War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century. Some Americans were sickened through exposure to aboveground atomic weapons tests, and others were exposed to heavy doses of radiation from working in the uranium mining industry. All the while, the government was slow to implement Federal protections. As a result, a generation of Americans who worked in the mines and lived near testing sites became sick with serious diseases like lung cancer and kidney disease.

Much of the United States' uranium development and weapons testing occurred in New Mexico and the West. Mines and mills drew workers into rural communities. These workers, and much of the country, were unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure. As mining and milling continued and our national understanding of the dangers of radiation exposure developed, the Federal Government continued to fail to ensure that uranium workers and their families were safe from the hazards of exposure to radioactive materials. As a result, numerous illnesses and cancers began to emerge in the men and women who worked in the uranium mining industry and lived downwind of weapons testing sites.

In my home State of New Mexico, the Pueblo of Laguna was home to the nation's largest open pit uranium mine. Additionally, many large and small mines and mill sites were opened within the Navajo Nation. In fact, much of the State's northwestern area is spackled with hundreds of abandoned uranium mines. Workers from across the State came to these mines and mills, especially from the economically struggling communities of rural New Mexico.

In the late '70s, my father, Stewart Udall, took up the fight for these workers. In 1979, my father filed 32 claims against the Department of Energy on behalf of widows of deceased Navajo uranium miners. In many ways, this marked the beginning of the fight for compensation for all uranium workers. I remember working those years with my whole family to collect information and push for recognition. It was a family effort to fight injustice, and for me, it continues to be a family priority. Ten years later, the original RECA legislation was passed in the United States Congress, giving a level of restitution to sick miners and millers, as well as individuals downwind of nuclear tests. The RECA legislation was later expanded upon through an amendment adopted in 2000.

The legislation we introduce today takes the next step to address the remaining shortfalls of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Specifically, the bill would include post-1971 uranium workers as qualified claimants. While the Federal Government ceased purchase of domestic uranium in 1971, implementation of Federal work safety standards was slow and regulation of mines was poor. As a result, thousands of miners and millers were never made aware of the dangers of the yellow cake they handled on a regular basis. In recently conducted surveys, the majority of uranium workers from this time period report that they did not have showers or washbasins in the mines where they worked. They often took contaminated clothing home for laundering, unaware of the hazards and with no other option for cleaning. Many also report that ventilation to prevent unnecessary exposure was not provided in their work areas.

Today, these workers continue to suffer and die from illnesses related to radiation exposure. But because their employment dates began after 1971, the cut-off included in the original RECA legislation, they have no opportunity for compensation. Our bill changes that. If the measure passes, individuals working between 1971 and 1990 will qualify to claim compensation for exposure-related diseases.

The bill we're introducing today would also expand the geographic areas that qualify for downwind compensation to include New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Guam. And for the first time, the bill recognizes downwind exposure from the original atomic weapons test site--the Trinity Site in New Mexico.

Those exposed as a result of aboveground weapons tests would receive increased compensation as a result of passage of the bill being introduced today. This would make their compensation consistent with their counterparts who worked in mines and mills.

Comprehensive epidemiological research on the impacts of uranium development on communities and families of uranium workers is long overdue. Our legislation would authorize funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to award grants to universities and non-profits to carry out such research.

Many who have suffered as a result of cold war uranium and weapons development do not have the documentation to prove their exposure. Often, mines and mills did not keep proper documentation of their workers, and many communities impacted do not have a tradition of keeping birth and marriage certification. The RECA Amendments of 2011 would broaden the use of affidavits to substantiate employment history and residence in an affected downwind area.

Employees would also be able to combine their time worked in multiple positions to meet the work-time requirements for compensation in the original RECA legislation if today's legislation is adopted.

Finally, this legislation would allow miners to be compensated for kidney disease. And it would allow core drillers to join miners, millers, and ore transporters on the current list of uranium workers who qualify for compensation under the Act.

For more than two decades now, the United States has tried to compensate in some way for the sickness and loss of life that came as a result of cold war era uranium and weapons development. Much has been accomplished, but today we are taking the next step to close

this sad chapter in history and to improve the reach of compassionate compensation to those Americans who have suffered, but have not qualified under RECA in its current form.

Thousands continue to suffer from deadly illnesses as a result of radiation exposure, but many do not qualify for compensation because they began employment after 1971, or because they worked for a short time in several different mines and mills. Others qualify for a level of compensation, but still struggle to pay the expensive medical bills associated with their illnesses.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize these individuals and expand RECA to include all who are justified in receiving radiation exposure compensation, and I urge the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to expedite hearing on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more management and oversight of major information technology, IT, investments across the federal government.

In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems.

Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic Records Archive initiative.

Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times more than originally planned.

We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil.

Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost- estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to the census price tag. Three billion!

The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for managing large IT projects.

Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that, when federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens.

Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a half.

For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions.

As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and Congressional oversight of the projects.

The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips.

The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed.

If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled.

On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key milestones, and lifecycle costs.

Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of dollars or endanger agency missions.

If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the project until it is brought into compliance.

If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk lists.

I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Federal Supervisor Training Act.

Properly trained supervisors are critical to the federal government's ability to efficiently and effectively provide essential services to the American people. First-level supervisors have close contact and frequent interaction with our Federal employees and thus have the most significant impact on employee performance.

Investing in first-level supervision could yield enormous positive returns. Research has shown that supervisory skills strongly predict agency performance and that improving the quality of first-level supervision is one of the most effective ways to improve an agency's performance. According to a 2010 Merit Systems Protection Board report entitled ``A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees,'' the fastest and most direct way to strengthen Federal workforce performance is to improve the supervision employees receive.

For managers and supervisors in the Federal Government, few things are more important than training. Supervisor training programs improve communication, promote stronger manager-employee relationships, reduce conflict, and cultivate efficiency.

Conversely, poor supervision can damage agency performance and employee morale, which undermines agency performance and wastes money. The National Academy of Public Administration reported that while it is difficult to quantify the precise cost of supervisory deficiencies, even a small deficiency could result in a loss of billions of dollars, and that without solid programs for developing first level supervisors, agencies pay an enormous price. Simply stated, investing in supervisory training in the Federal Government now will save us money later.

The need for effective supervisor training is becoming even more pressing given the large number of Federal employees who are expected to retire in the next few years. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that by the year 2014, approximately 53 percent of permanent full-time Federal employees will be eligible to retire, and the majority of those eligible will retire. Because supervisors tend to be older and have more years of service than non-supervisors, supervisors are likely to retire at faster rates than non-supervisors. In light of the expected retirement wave, training a new

generation of federal supervisors is a matter of national urgency.

The Federal Supervisor Training Act will require that new supervisors receive training on specified topics, including whistleblower and anti- discrimination rights, during their initial 12 months on the job, unless the Office of Personnel Management grants an extension to their employing agency. Supervisors will be required to update their training once every three years. Current supervisors will have three years to obtain their initial training. This bill will also require agencies to implement a program whereby experienced supervisors mentor new supervisors.

In addition, the Federal Supervisor Training Act will require the Office of Personnel Management to issue guidance to agencies on competencies supervisors are expected to meet in order to effectively supervise employees. Based on this guidance, or any additional competencies established by employing agencies, each agency will be required to assess the performance of its supervisors.

This bill builds upon supervisor training requirements under the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, which directs agencies to establish training programs that develop supervisors, and to establish programs to provide additional training to supervisors in three areas-- dealing with poor performers, mentoring employees and improving their performance, and conducting performance appraisals.

I am delighted that this bill has received support from the Government Managers Coalition, which represents members of the Senior Executives Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Professional Managers Association, the Federal Aviation Administration Managers Association, and the National Council of Social Security Management Associations. Additionally, it is supported by some of the largest federal sector labor organizations, including the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. Finally, this bill is supported by the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit, non-partisan organization which works to find ways to improve the government's ability to provide services to citizens. I believe the broad support from management associations, labor organizations, and outside good government groups demonstrates the need for this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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