Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I welcome everyone back from our week away for the Fourth of July recess. I did not have an opportunity to talk this morning with the majority leader, and I understand he was able to come to the floor and indicate there is a lot of work to be done, and I share his view about the extent to which work should be done. I hope we can work as productively this coming work period as we worked in the last work period. We had an arrangement that I think worked very well following an unfortunate confrontation prior to the time we went away for the Memorial Day recess. The cooperation and partnership that was demonstrated over this last work period is one that I hope we can model again. I say that because I am concerned about the precarious way with which we are starting this week. Senator Lott has filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the estate tax, and then it is my understanding his intention is to file a cloture motion on the bill itself. I remind my colleagues that is exactly what got us into the position we were in prior to the Memorial Day recess. I hope we can work through that. I have offered Senator Lott a limit on the number of amendments to the estate tax bill and a time limit on the amendment. I am very disappointed that we are not able to do what we have been able to do on so many bills, and that is reach some sort of accommodation for both sides. We still have some time this week, and I am hopeful that will happen. Let me also say that I am increasingly not only concerned but alarmed that we have yet to schedule a date certain for the consideration of permanent normal trade relations with China. I had a clear understanding we would take up the bill this month. Yet I am told now that at a Republican staff meeting today there was a good deal of discussion about the need to move it to September. I inform my colleagues that we will ask unanimous consent to take up PNTR. If that fails, at some point this week, we will actually make a motion to proceed to PNTR by a time certain this month. We cannot fail to act on that issue any longer. We must act. So we will make that motion to proceed to PNTR if the majority leader chooses not to make the motion for whatever reason. I will also say that, as he has indicated, there is a good deal of business left undone that, for whatever reason, has been blocked by some of our colleagues on the other side. We will want to address those issues as well. We will offer a motion to proceed to the Patients' Bill of Rights. We will certainly want to do that, as well as prescription drugs, minimum wage, and a number of issues relating to common sense gun legislation, such as closing the so-called gun show loophole and dealing with the incremental approaches to gun safety that the Senate supported as part of the juvenile justice bill. I will say, we will also want to move to proceed to the H-1B legislation that passed in the House overwhelmingly. We want to be able to offer amendments. We would like to take it up. It should happen this week; if not this week, next week. But we ought to take up H-1B as well. You could call this week the ``Trillion Dollar Week,'' the Trillion Dollar Week because our Republican colleagues are choosing to ignore all of the legislation I have just noted, given the limited time we have, and instead commit this country to $1 trillion in two tax cuts relating, first, to the marriage penalty, which we are told by CBO would cost a little over $250 billion over a 10-year period of time; and the estate tax repeal, which, over a fully implemented 10-year period, costs $750 billion. That is $1 trillion dealing with just two issues: the estate tax and the marriage penalty. It does not even go to the array of other tax- related questions that some of our Republican colleagues have addressed in the past. We could be up into $3 or $4 trillion worth of tax cuts if all of the tax proposals made by our Republican colleagues were enacted. But we may want to call this the ``Trillion Dollar Week'' if our Republican colleagues have their way: $750 billion on the estate tax; $250 billion on the marriage tax penalty--and, I will say, $1 trillion, with very limited debate, with no real opportunity to offer amendments, with no real suggestion about whether or not we ought to have at least the right to offer alternatives to spending that much money. The Democrats believe very strongly in the need to ensure that small businesses and farms are protected and that the ability is provided to transfer small businesses and farms. But we can do that for a lot less than $750 billion. We believe very strongly in the importance of the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. But we do not have to spend $250 billion to deal with it. In fact, the regular order right now is the marriage tax penalty. We have offered a limit on amendments, a limit on time on those 10 amendments. We could take it up and deal with it this week--or could have last week, last month, the month before. Instead, what our Republicans colleagues are doing--and, I might add, all the time calling for our cooperation--is saying: No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to give you relevant amendments on the marriage penalty. We are going to go to the first reconciliation bill so you can't have amendments. We are going to take up the bill that way. But we still want your cooperation. Now we are told that we will have an opportunity to vote on cloture because we are given the same mandate, the same ultimatum, when it comes to amendments on estate taxes. So let me end where I started. I really do hope that we can have as productive a time this coming month as we had last month. I thought it was a good month. But I must say, this is a precarious beginning with this Trillion Dollar Week. It is a precarious beginning when, with all of the people's business the majority leader referred to, we are not actually going to deal with the people's business. We are going to deal with 2 percent of the population affected by the estate tax, and we are going to deal with a marriage penalty bill that goes way beyond repealing the marriage penalty, that actually gives a bonus to some taxpayers, all the time denying Democratic Senators the right to offer amendments on other directions that we might take. So I look forward to talking and working with the majority leader, and I look forward to a good and rigorous debate about all of the issues having to do with the people's business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time to make a couple of comments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud and pleased that today the Senate has voted to authorize a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor disabled American veterans. I must say that it is humbling for me to be a co-sponsor of this bill alongside some of the very people we are honoring--my fellow Senators Max Cleland, Daniel Inouye and Bob Kerrey. I know there are thousands of others across our country--some of whom I know personally--and they deserve much more than a monument. They all have had their lives disrupted, sometimes painfully, as a result of their willingness to fight for America and all that it stands for. But we cannot undo the damage to limb and spirit that has already been inflicted. So we now authorize a permanent monument that will call attention to the special esteem we hold for our disabled veterans-- living and dead. It is my sincere hope that we can create a singular commemorative site that will encourage all Americans to come, pause, and reflect on the meaning of sacrifice, patriotism, and the place of disabled citizens in our society. Mr. President, wish the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation all the best in the hard work to come, and I look forward to the day when the people of America can admire the memorial and reflect on the significant sacrifices it represents.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I also express my congratulations to Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for their masterful effort in getting the Senate to this point, and for the managers of the bill itself. As Senator Lott has indicated, this was not an easy task. All the way to the very last moment it looked as if this could have been derailed. It wasn't, in part because of leadership and in part because of cooperation. I think we have done a good thing today, an important thing. It is important we finish this work prior to the time we leave. This bill will now go to the President, as it should. I know he will sign it. I think we are ending the way we should have ended, on a high note with a good deal accomplished. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just say, as I indicated last night, we want to work with the majority, with the leader, to accommodate his desire to bring this bill to closure. We are just about there. We are not quite there. I have been talking with one of my colleagues in regard to that particular request. We are not there yet. Unfortunately, I will object.

Mr. DASCHLE. That would be preferable.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we now know what this is all about. Some of our Republican colleagues are going to try to convince a majority in this body that employment ought not be included when we consider discrimination based upon genetic character. I do not think employment discrimination should be treated differently from insurance discrimination. I do not think people who have experienced discrimination, as we have already seen in so many illustrations, ought to be told they have to be concerned about their job simply because of some genetic defect. That has already happened. We have already seen that happen in case after case. I described a case this morning where Terri Seargent, who had moved up the corporate ladder and was given promotion after promotion, was asked to resign when it was learned that she had the genetic marker for ``Alpha 1''. No woman, no man, no person, no employee, should be subjected to discrimination based upon genetic characteristics, and that is happening today. ADA passed a long time ago. That law did not envision the challenges science presents us today. We are simply proposing that we clarify that it should be unlawful to discriminate on the basis of genetic information. The bottom line question is, when it comes down to these two proposals, whether we should prohibit both health insurers and employers from using predictive genetic information in a discriminatory fashion? There is agreement, at least with regard to one issue: we should prohibit health insurers from doing it, but our Republican colleagues--at least the senior Senator from Vermont--are saying we just should not cover employers. We should not do it because he would like to have us believe it is already being done. Tell that to Terri Seargent. Tell that to myriad other people who already have had difficulty explaining their situation, in large measure because they have found some genetic defect. We agree that insurance companies should not discriminate. We agree there should not be any tests for conditions of coverage. We simply disagree at this moment about whether or not we ought to take what we have already done for virtually every other form of discrimination in this country and extend it to genetic information. The senior Senator from Vermont says no, he does not want to do that. But I cannot imagine that in this day, in this age, given what we are doing with the genome project and our recognition of what it will mean, both good and bad, for this country and for our people that now is not the time to ensure that, regardless of circumstance, we will not allow this to be used as a means of discrimination in the workplace. Listen to what Francis Collins, one of the key people who headed the international research team that makes up the human genome project, said about this very issue: Genetic discrimination in insurance and the workplace is wrong and it ought to be prevented by effective Federal legislation. This is from the head of the research unit. He does not have any question about whether or not ADA covers genetic discrimination. He has already decided. He is the head of the research team. He said this ought to be a wake-up call; let's ban it today. He did not say let's wait for more hearings. He did not say let's get out there and try to figure out a way to do it through regulation. He said this ought to be a wake-up call. That is not Tom Daschle; that is not Terri Seargent who has been discriminated against; that is Francis Collins, the head of the international research project calling upon the Senate today to ban discrimination based upon employment. It cannot be any clearer than that, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was asked to delay the consideration of this amendment this morning. I said I would. I have been attempting to accommodate Senators all the way through. We have lost a couple of Senators already. I would be compelled to object to this unless we were able to get the two votes immediately following the debate on the two amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Jeffords and I be given 30 minutes each.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can add my thoughts, I share the view expressed just now by the majority leader. We really want to help the managers finish their work on this bill. They have been working on it now for weeks. We have come a long way. The majority leader has also indicated to colleagues who have concerns about nonrelevant amendments that we will have an opportunity to consider other vehicles immediately following the completion of the Defense authorization bill so we will be able to continue this procedure of a dual track to allow the consideration of other issues. With that understanding, we want to work with the managers to rid ourselves of nonrelevant amendments, stick to those amendments which are relevant in an effort to, as the leader suggested, finish the bill in a matter of a night or two. I commend the managers for the effort they have made thus far. We will work with them to see we finish it.

Mr. DASCHLE. I compliment the Senator from New Mexico. He truly has been one of those leaders in the field. In fact, I have before me S. 422 which he introduced in the 105th Congress. Title IV of his bill, discrimination by employers or potential employers, is almost exactly what is in the Daschle amendment this afternoon. He was one of the first to be out there. I give him great credit for what he has already done with his leadership on this issue. He has given some history this afternoon about how this started. He was here in the last Congress advocating that this body oppose discrimination in the workplace. So that everyone knows prior to the time they vote what it is we are talking about, the Jeffords amendment does not prohibit insurers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information in the workplace. The Jeffords amendment does not prohibit the disclosure of test results without consent. It does not prohibit the use of predictive genetic information for hiring. It does not ensure that those who suffer from genetic discrimination have the right to seek redress through legal action. It fails on a basic level with regards to what we ought to do with respect to genetic discrimination. It is on that basis I remind my colleagues that 59 organizations have come forward to urge Members to say no to legislation that fails to regulate the workplace. Don't listen to me. Listen to those organizations. Listen to Craig Venter of the Clera Genomics. Listen to Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Listen to the editorial writers from papers across this country who have said, again and again, we must pass legislation quickly before it is too late. This is a no-brainer. This is our opportunity today to say yes to Craig Venter, to say yes to Dr. Collins, to say yes to the organizations, and to say yes to Terri Seargent, who has already been victimized as a result of this. This is our opportunity to say no to discrimination in the workplace, to say the Senate will go on record for the first time that we will not allow any genetic discrimination regardless of circumstances. I hope on a bipartisan basis our colleagues will join in support of this legislation. The time has come. It was introduced in the last Congress. It is now being offered in this Congress with every expectation and hope that we can send the clearest message possible that we will not tolerate discrimination. We will allow the research to go forward without any question that the information can be protected. That is what we want. That is what the health organizations want. That is what Terri Seargent wants. That is what we all should want in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record editorials from around the country.

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have great admiration for the Senator from Wyoming. I have worked with him on many issues. I never find it easy to disagree with a colleague, but let me say with regard to his argument that this is going to be a turnstile to more lawsuits; that is the same argument used on so many occasions and that was used against the ADA. I was on the floor. I remember those debates so well. I participated in them. They said this was going to cause a flurry of lawsuits. Who today would vote to repeal the ADA? I daresay not one Senator-- Republican or Democrat. He made reference to the EEOC's position on whether the ADA covers genetic discrimination. I hope they are right. But what is wrong with making absolutely sure they are right? That is what this bill does. This bill isn't complicated. I know some of our colleagues would like to point to the volume of this amendment and say that bulk is clear evidence of complication. We are simply saying, as simply as we can, that you shouldn't discriminate in the workplace; and, if you do, you ought to have some opportunity to redress that problem. I have a real concern as well about what inaction means for research. Dr. Craig Venter was on the Hill on several occasions and has made several public statements. His concern about discrimination is one that we ought to be truly appreciative of as well. Dr. Venter, president of Celera Genomics, said: The biggest concern I have is genetic discrimination. This would be the biggest barrier against having a real medical revolution based on this tremendous new scientific information. Dr. Venter is worried, if we see discrimination, that automatically and almost immediately it is going to bottle up his opportunity to continue the research. I go to the next chart, and look at what others have said. Dr. Collins, somebody I have quoted on several occasions, says: Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust . . . Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information. It doesn't get any clearer than that. First, you have the top researcher saying they are concerned about the ramifications of a lack of congressional action, not only for job discrimination, but for research. Then you have Dr. Collins who says we have already seen cases where people have lost their jobs and lost their health insurance as a result of this. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing was equally as concerned in their public statement. Keep in mind that this isn't some Democratic advocate; this is the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. This is a quote: Federal legislation should be enacted to prohibit discrimination in employment and health insurance based on genetic information. . ..Without these protections, individuals will be reluctant to participate in research on, or the application of, genetic testing. How much more information do we need? How many more hearings do we have to have when you have the most credible experts anywhere to be found, here or anywhere else, who are pleading with the Congress to do something before it gets even worse, before more people lose their jobs and their health insurance, and before we see some real ramifications with regard to medical testing? That is what we are doing. That is what this amendment does. That is why it needs to be passed this afternoon. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the clarification. I am delighted to hear that there is still some hope I can persuade him with the merits of our legislation. To ensure that everybody understands--I think it is pretty basic-- three-fourths of the people in this country obtain their health insurance through their employer. Whether or not employers may discriminate against employees and potential employees on the basis of genetic information, in large measure, will be determined by whether or not we write into law a pretty simple concept. It doesn't take any complex legalism to say, look, you should not discriminate based upon genetic information, period. If you think you are discriminated against, you ought to have recourse in a court of law. That is all we are saying. Now, the Jeffords amendment provides no protection against employment discrimination. That is clear. It does not prohibit insurers from disclosing the results of genetic tests without consent. That is clear. It does not prohibit the use of predictive genetic information for hiring, advancement, salary, or other workplace rights and privileges. That is clear. It doesn't provide persons who have suffered genetic discrimination in either arena with the right to seek redress through a legal action. That is clear. It is no wonder that 59 health organizations have said: We have looked at what Senator Jeffords is proposing and we think you can do better. That is no accident. They are asking us not to support this legislation because there is no meaningful protection in the Jeffords amendment. I am all for more hearings, but it is ironic--how many times has the majority bypassed a committee to go straight to the floor without hearings on bills of great import? We are going to do that as soon as we come back from the Fourth of July recess. We are going to vote on an estate tax provision that will cost, in the full 10-year period, three quarters of $1 trillion; we are going to vote on it without one hearing, without one committee markup. I will bet you we are not going to hear the argument by the other side that we ought to have hearings on that. This is pretty simple. This is basic math. If you don't want discrimination in the workplace, vote for the Daschle amendment. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the Senator 1 more minute.

Mr. DASCHLE. We have the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute who has said we have to pass a bill immediately to bar discrimination in the workplace. We have a bill pending that will allow us to do just that. We have another bill pending that does not provide that protection in terms of discrimination. Fifty-nine health organizations, including the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the Genetic Alliance, the CARE Foundation, the Oncology Nursing Society have said: Please, do more than the legislation offered by the Senator from Vermont. So it isn't just Dr. Collins, it isn't just Terri Seargent, it is a list of health organizations, the likes of which you rarely see, who have come together to say: We ought to do better than this. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond to a few of the arguments posed by the Senator from Tennessee. First of all, with regard to the technicalities to which he made reference, I do not know what technicalities and what information could be murky about what it is we are trying to do. We simply say there should not be any employment discrimination based on genetic information. That is it. He talked about these discrimination actions being subjected to a mysterious penalty. All we have said in section 4 of the bill is that if you think you were discriminated against, you can go to court and have a court make some decision with regard to whether there is discrimination or not. That is the penalty. We do not prescribe any penalties. We prescribe some degree of accountability. We simply say, if you think you were discriminated against, you get to sue, period. That is all. On another point, let me say that the legislation proposed by our Republican colleagues has already been analyzed in some detail as part of their Patients' Bill of Rights, as the Senator from Vermont has said. On April 12, Senator Harkin received a letter from 59 health organizations that wrote with concern about the language propounded in this amendment by the Senator from Vermont. Fifty-nine health organizations have already said: This is not the way we ought to do it. They don't need more hearings. They don't need more information. They have looked at the bill. They have come to the conclusion that if we are going to write public policy regarding genetic discrimination, this isn't it. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and names of all 59 organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask if the distinguished manager of the bill would modify the request to allow for votes to take place immediately following the disposition of the debate on the two amendments. The unanimous consent did call for that. I assume that is the understanding of the proponent of the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for 30 seconds? If he will yield for a couple of seconds, I want to yield 5 minutes of my leader time to the senior Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not bring up also the understanding the leader and I have about further confirmation of judges. Obviously, when we come back, that is going to continue to be an important matter. The leader has certainly indicated a willingness to work with us on that. It is also with that understanding that Senator Levin has some very important matters, Senator Reid, and others. I appreciate very much the majority leader's commitment to work with us on that as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Rural Recovery Act of 2000 to help address the economic malaise that has gripped certain rural areas of our country. The legislation will authorize the Department of Agriculture to provide grants to rural communities suffering from out-migration and low per-capita income. Rural areas of our nation continue to experience an erosion in their economic well-being. Statistics bear out the decline in rural economic activity, but they fail to fully capture the human suffering that lies just beyond the numbers. Economic downturns lead to the migration away from farm-dependent, rural communities, further stifling economic opportunities for those left behind. The 1990 Census highlighted these migratory trends, and I anticipate that similar trends will be captured by the 2000 Census, as well. In short, the prosperity from which many Americans have benefited from during the past decade has left many rural areas standing by the wayside. If this trend continues, more and more young people will be forced to leave the towns they grew up in for opportunities in urban areas. In towns like Webster, Eureka, and Martin, South Dakota, we are seeing farm families broken up, populations decline, and main street businesses close their doors. While there is no doubt that economic growth in our urban areas has benefited our nation, the disparity of economic development between our rural and urban areas cannot be ignored. If nothing is done to address the economic challenges facing these areas, we will jeopardize the future of rural America. That is why I have introduced legislation to provide the nation's rural areas with the resources necessary to make critical investments in their future and, by doing so, to create economic opportunities that will help them sustain a valuable and important way of life. It also will help rural areas provide basic services at times when they are losing a significant part of their tax base. While federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development Administration, provide assistance for rural development purposes, there are no federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural areas most affected by severe out- migration and low per-capita income. For these areas, the process of economic development is often most arduous. This legislation will provide the basic, long-term assistance necessary to aid the coordination efforts of local community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts and struggle to provide basic public services. County and tribal governments will be able to use this federal funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for development, build affordable housing and create economic recovery strategies according to their needs. All of these important steps will help rural communities address their economic problems and plan for long-term growth and development. Mr. President, I believe this legislation holds great potential for revitalizing many of our nation's most neglected and vulnerable areas. I urge my colleagues to support its enactment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, this week, we got our first glimpse of the first rough draft of the human genetic code. The public-private partnership known as the Human Genome Project is the genetic equivalent of putting man on the moon. By decoding our genetic makeup, researchers may soon discover how to cure and even prevent heart disease, cancer, birth defects, and other serious medical conditions. We have every reason to be hopeful about this breakthrough. But we also have some reason to be concerned, because genetic information-- used improperly--can also cause great harm. Improvements in genetic testing can determine whether a person has an increased chance of developing breast cancer, or colon cancer, or some other serious illness--years before symptoms even appear. In the right hands, that information could save your life. In the wrong hands, that same information could be used to deny you insurance, a mortgage, or even a job. We need to make sure this new research--which has been funded largely by American taxpayers--is used to help America's families, not hurt them. That is the goal of this amendment. Francis Collins probably knows more about the potential of genetic testing than anyone in the world. He is the head of the international research team that makes up the Human Genome Project. Listen to what Dr. Collins said on Monday, the day the results of the first phase of the Human Genome Project were unveiled: Genetic discrimination in insurance and the workplace is wrong and it ought to be prevented by effective federal legislation. He added: If we needed a wake-up call to say that it's time to do this, isn't today the wake-up call? Dr. Collins is right. It would be an absolute travesty if a test that could save your life ends up costing you your job or your financial security. Genetic discrimination isn't just a theoretical possibility. It isn't just something that might happen in the future. It is already happening--even without the information the human genome promises to uncover. It is already happening to people like Terri Seargent. Terri was a model employee who was moving up the corporate ladder-- until the day a test revealed that she carried a gene that might--here I emphasize ``might''--make her more susceptible to a potentially fatal pulmonary condition. Before her employers saw those test results, they used to give Terri glowing job performance reviews. But after they saw the results, they asked her to resign. She did, because she had no choice, because genetic discrimination is not clearly prohibited--in the workplace, or anywhere else. The solution is obvious. Dr. Collins is right. Our laws must keep pace with advances in science and technology. No one should suffer discrimination solely because of his or her genetic makeup. Last year, the President signed an executive order outlawing genetic discrimination in the workplace for Federal employees. It is now time to expand these important protections to all Americans. That is why I am offering, along with my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin--the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act as an amendment to this bill. Our bill has three major components: First, it forbids employers from discriminating in hiring, or in the terms and conditions of employment, on the basis of genetic information; Second, it forbids health insurers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information; and Third, it prevents the disclosure of genetic information to health insurers, health insurance data banks, employers, and anyone else who has no legitimate need for information of this kind. Discrimination based on genetic factors is just as unacceptable as that based on race, national origin, religion, sex or disability. In each case, people are treated unfairly, not because of their inherent abilities but solely because of irrelevant characteristics. Genetic discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, hurts us all. It hurts our economy by keeping talented people out of the workforce and diminishes us as a people. We cannot take one step forward in science but two steps back in civil rights. And we will all pay the price in increased health care costs if we allow employers or insurers to use genetic information to discriminate. If fear of discrimination stops people from getting genetic tests, early diagnosis and preventative treatments, they may suffer much more serious and more expensive health problems in the long run. And we all have to pay for that, as well. Finally, genetic discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Project's fundamental purpose of promoting public health. Investing resources in the Human Genome Project is justified by the benefits of identifying, preventing and developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear of discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis, our understanding of the humane genome will be in vain. A CNN/Time Poll released earlier this week, found that a full 80 percent of the respondents said genetic information should not be available to insurance companies. And almost half of all Americans believe there will be negative consequences from the Human Genome Project. I think we ought to prove today that they are wrong. Let us make sure that Americans are not afraid to take advantage of breakthroughs in genetic testing. Dramatic scientific advances should not have negative consequences for our health care. We have an historic opportunity to preempt this problem. Today, Congress should expand the scope of its antidiscrimination laws to include a ban on genetic discrimination. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.