Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and committee ranking member, Senator Chambliss, to offer the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act. This legislation will reauthorize and amend the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act we enacted in 2003 to control the collection and disbursement of fees collected in the pesticide registration process. This legislation extends the authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect maintenance fees for the reregistration of pesticides. This legislation is agreed upon by a broad array of stakeholders, including the manufacturers, environmental groups and agricultural producers. This legislation ensures that these chemicals are reevaluated in a timely manner, while covering the costs of the EPA workers who carry out this important work. This bill has no budgetary impact and should not be controversial. I ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged and rural school districts. We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff. The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for their children. So why on earth would we stand by while the state of the buildings in which our children learn are assigned such a grade? Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country about that funding. But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322 billion. I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending on school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent communities which are better able to fund new investments without outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood. Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per student in school repair and construction spending than their peers living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment. The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts. States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 billion Federal investment. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school administrators, and principals. The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters, shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message to children about the importance of education. I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and Renovation Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged and rural school districts. We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff. The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for their children. So why on earth would we stand by while the state of the buildings in which our children learn are assigned such a grade? Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country about that funding. But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322 billion. I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending on school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent communities which are better able to fund new investments without outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood. Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per student in school repair and construction spending than their peers living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment. The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts. States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 billion Federal investment. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school administrators, and principals. The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters, shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message to children about the importance of education. I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and Renovation Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Kimberly of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the decade since it was first authorized, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been an extraordinary success story. It has reduced the number of uninsured low-income children by a third, providing basic health insurance to 6.6 million children whose parents cannot afford private insurance but who do not qualify for Medicaid. In my State of Iowa, the Children's Health Insurance Program has brought health insurance to nearly 50,000 children. Think about that: 50,000 kids who otherwise have had no health insurance have had access to regular checkups and prompt treatment of illnesses and injuries. By any measurement, this is a stunning success. Let me introduce to my colleagues one of those 50,000 success stories. Her name is Jenci Ruff. She lives in Knoxville, IA. When she was in the third grade, she began having trouble seeing the blackboard. The school nurse recommended that she have her eyes tested, but her parents couldn't take her to a doctor; they were living paycheck to paycheck; they had no health insurance. By fourth grade, Jenci still couldn't see the blackboard and she began having headaches. Fortunately, Mrs. Ruff learned about the Children's Health Insurance Program. She enrolled Jenci and her little brother. Jenci was referred to an eye specialist and received treatment. A year and a half later, her vision has greatly improved and her headaches have gone away. Mrs. Ruff believes that the treatment made possible by the Children's Health Insurance Program saved her daughter from going blind. In addition, Jenci's brother, prior to starting school, was able to get the necessary shots and physicals he needed. As Mrs. Ruff told the Des Moines Register: Before, Jenci was having such a hard time to get through her reading. Her grades have improved. Her attitude about school has improved. But if she hadn't had this program-- The Children's Health Insurance Program-- we never would have made it to a specialist. I am very happy for Jenci Ruff and her brother and her family. But I have to ask, Don't we owe it to all of America's kids? Surely, in a humane, decent society, no child should go uninsured. No child should go without regular checkups and prompt treatment of illnesses and injuries. That is why it is incomprehensible--incomprehensible--to me that President Bush is pledging to veto this bill because it would extend coverage of the CHIP program to too many kids. How could we extend it to too many kids? Instead, the President proposed $4.8 billion in additional funding over the next 5 years. That is less than what is needed just to maintain current enrollments. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's proposed funding would cut 1.4 million children and pregnant women from the Children's Health Insurance Program. How could anyone say that Jenci Ruff should have been cut from the children's health program? It saved her. It saved her from going blind. Yet we are told we don't have the money for this? Nonsense. Just think what it would have cost society if Jenci had gone blind, God forbid. What would the cost to society have been for her lifetime of special education, special schools, seeing-eye dogs, and all of the other things? How much more productive is she going to be now? Talk about penny wise and pound foolish. The President just doesn't get it. Sometimes, when people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have had all the accoutrements, they have had all the wonderful hospitals and doctors all their lives, they somehow--and I don't say this of everyone, but some people just can't imagine that everyone is not like them. Well, there are a lot of people who do not have the kind of wherewithal you may have had growing up. So it is not just a public policy choice. I think the choice we have is a very moral choice: Do we go forward and extend health insurance to more kids from low-income families or do we cut these children from the rolls, condemn them to a childhood without checkups, without decent health care, without necessary medical treatment--that is, until they show up in the emergency room. We all know too well what it means when a child does not have health insurance, when they don't even have access to basic medical care. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported on 8-year-old Deamonte Driver of Prince George's County, MD. Deamonte was suffering from an abscessed tooth, but his mother could not afford to take him to a dentist. Eventually, the abscess spread to Deamonte's brain. He was taken to an emergency room, but tragically, after two operations and more than 6 weeks of hospital care costing upwards of $250,000, Deamonte--this young guy right here, Deamonte Driver--died. He died from an abscessed tooth. In the 21st century in the United States of America, this child died because he had an abscessed tooth because he is so low-income, he didn't have health care and mom didn't have any money. Not until he got so sick that they rushed him to the emergency room, and he died. Why in the world would President Bush want to cut more than a million children from the rolls of the Children's Health Insurance Program and put them in jeopardy--the kind of jeopardy that took Deamonte's life? What is the real cost of denying children access to basic health care? Well, in the case of Deamonte Driver, if you want to know just in money terms, a quarter of a million dollars in emergency hospital bills, and, most importantly, it deprived Deamonte of his life and a very happy future. So you compare the positive fate of Jenci Ruff, who is covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, to the tragic fate of Deamonte Driver, who was not. This is not just a tale of two kids and two very different outcomes; it is the tale of two choices, the two choices we have to make. So we must make the right choice. Surely some things are beyond partisan disputes and ideological obsessions. Surely we can come together here to support extending health insurance to more kids in low-income families. Some have argued that the President's pledge to veto this Children's Health Insurance Program is the death knell of compassionate conservatism. We have all heard about compassionate conservatism. Well, I would just point out that the President's threat of a veto is disappointing. But I would like to note on the positive side that this bill enjoys the strong support of a large number of conservatives, moderates, and liberals here in the Senate and in the other body, and it has no more outspoken champion than my distinguished senior colleague from the State of Iowa, Senator Grassley, who I see just arrived on the floor. So, as I said, this cuts across ideological lines. This is no conservative, liberal, moderate, up, down, sideways kind of issue; it is a basic moral issue that we have to confront. I would say on behalf of my colleague from Iowa and so many Republicans who are supporting the Children's Health Insurance Program that compassion and common sense is alive and well with these Republicans. I applaud them for it. With their support, we intend to move forward with a bill that is not only strongly bipartisan but that, according to a recent Georgetown University poll, is supported by 9 in 10 Americans, including, I might add, the poll said 83 percent of self- identified Republicans. So again, this is not a partisan issue. Now, it may be an issue with this President and his ill-conceived notions, but it is not a partisan issue. Lastly, this program has been a Godsend to my State of Iowa. As I said earlier, 50,000 kids in Iowa are covered who obviously would not have been. We call it the HAWK-I Program in Iowa, the Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa--the HAWK-I Program. The top income limit for Iowa families is 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which comes to about $34,000 for a family of three, and, along with Medicaid, provides primary and preventive services to 3 out of every 10 Iowa kids. Yet, even with these programs I am talking about--Medicaid and HAWK-I--even with those two, an estimated 30,000 to 55,000 Iowa children remain uninsured. With the new funding provided in this bill, Iowa could cover nearly 15,000 more children over the next 5 years. Expanding this program to cover more low-income kids is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart and cost-effective thing to do. We know when children get access to preventive and primary care services, good things happen. Kids get better health outcomes. They stay out of the emergency room. They get better grades. They do better in school. One dollar spent on the CHIP program can save many more dollars in health care expenses. When an asthmatic child is enrolled in the program, the frequency of attacks declines by 60 percent and the likelihood that they will be hospitalized for that condition declines by more than 70 percent. If anybody has been paying attention, you know that kids' asthma has been on a huge increase in this country, especially among poor kids. Well, this is one way of keeping them out of the hospital. It is providing them with this kind of preventive coverage. I might also add that the Children's Health Insurance Program is vitally important to rural Americans--rural States such as Iowa. The simple fact is that rural kids are more likely to be poor. In the most recent survey, 47 percent of rural children--47 percent--live in low- income families. So they are not only more likely to be poor, their parents are less likely to have any access to an employer-based health insurance program. So in the absence of the CHIP program and Medicaid, millions of low-income rural families have no other health insurance option, period. They live in small towns. They work for small employers,--mom-and-pop places that employ two or three or four or five people. They don't have the wherewithal to provide employer-based health insurance. They don't pay a lot of money. But these people are hard-working. They go to work every day and they work hard; they just don't make a lot of money. They live in a rural area, so they don't qualify for Medicaid, but they don't have enough money to buy health insurance. That is why this program is so important to rural America. Experience shows that rural children are also difficult to enroll in the Children's Health Insurance Program, even when they are eligible. Again, low-income parents are often required to travel long distances to enroll their kids. In addition to high travel costs, there are language and sometimes cultural barriers. For these reasons, I am pleased that this bill would establish a new grant program to finance outreach and enrollment efforts targeted to rural areas. So not only has the Children's Health Insurance Program been a great success, it is more important today than ever. In the decade since the program was created, we know the cost of insurance has skyrocketed and the number of Americans covered has fallen dramatically. But this has been a safety net for millions of low-income American families. The bill before us would maintain coverage for the 6.6 million children currently covered and would extend coverage to more than 3 million more low-income, uninsured children over the next 5 years. That is a good and noble goal. Obviously, if I had my druthers, I would say we ought to cover all kids--every child in America whose family does not qualify, does not have employer-based insurance, and whose income is such that they cannot afford private insurance. They ought to be covered by this program. They said this would cost $50 billion over the next several years. Well, then they made an agreement to make it $35 billion instead of $50 billion. OK, fine. I understand compromise around here. But that doesn't remove the fact that, even with this bill, millions of low- income kids will still be left without health insurance coverage. That is our task--to fill that gap. We may not get it done this year, but at least we can get this done this year and, hopefully, we can finish the job next year and cover every kid in America with health insurance. It is time to put partisanship, ideology, and politics aside and pass this bill. Hopefully, the President will see more clearly his obligation to sign it and not veto it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record. It is a chart related to the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, a bill that Senator Chambliss and I plan to introduce shortly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to honor Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, and to congratulate him on his retirement from public service. Dr. DeHaven has served the agency for 28 years during which he has contributed greatly to the agency's mission of promoting and protecting U.S. agriculture. Dr. DeHaven began his APHIS career working in a field office for the veterinary services program in 1979. He later joined the agency's animal care program, rising to the top position in 1996. From 2001 to 2002 he served as the APHIS acting associate administrator, and in 2002, became head of the agency's veterinary services program. As the Nation's chief veterinarian, he played a leading role as the agency faced the first U.S. detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in 2003. His handling of this situation--as well as other animal health emergencies--showcased his trademark straightforward leadership style and calm demeanor. These challenges prepared him well for the role of APHIS Administrator, which he assumed in 2004. As Administrator, he has skillfully guided his agency and communicated with the public, Congress, and USDA's many stakeholders. He worked conscientiously to position APHIS to prevent and respond to such threats as highly pathogenic avian influenza, exotic Newcastle disease, sudden oak death, Asian longhorned beetle and citrus diseases. Dr. DeHaven's dedication, work ethic, and personal commitment to excellence have served U.S. agriculture well and ensured a healthy and abundant food supply for U.S consumers.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last Thursday, July 26, 2007, was the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On that day in 1990, thousands of people gathered on the south lawn of the White House. It was the largest gathering at least to that date--it may still be--for the signing of legislation. It was a beautiful sunny day. President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. That bill had taken a long time to develop, years to develop. A lot of hard work and effort went into it. As the chief Senate sponsor of that bill, getting that bill passed was the proudest day in my life, having been raised with a brother who was disabled. Seeing how he was discriminated against all his life compelled me when I first came to the House and then to the Senate to work on these issues, the issues of the discrimination against Americans with disabilities and how people with disabilities had been kept out of the mainstream of American life, how they had been shunted aside, warehoused, categorized in ways that demean their personhood in ways that prevented them from contributing all they could to our American society. So the Americans with Disabilities Act was a major civil rights act-- a major civil rights act--to ban discrimination, just as we did against people of color, against women, national origin, sex, for example. We now include people with disabilities under a broad civil rights umbrella. We have made great advances since that time. It is all over. One can see it wherever one goes--curb cuts, accessible buses, accessible trains, widened doors. Every building now built in the United States of America is fully accessible. Architecture has changed. I have a nephew who is an architect, and he said when that bill became law in the 1990s, architecture school started teaching different subjects, architecture firms started designing buildings differently for universal accessibility. We have come to accept that situation. There is a problem, and the problem has come about through some Supreme Court decisions of late. That is why last Thursday on the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I joined with Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, with House majority leader Steny Hoyer, and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, in introducing a bipartisan measure called the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. As I will explain in more detail shortly, this bill offers a modest, reasonable legislative fix in response to court decisions that have misconstrued the original legislative intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which I will refer to now on as the ADA. Again, what is remarkable about this legislation is that it was done in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with Members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for millions of Americans with disabilities. But that is the way we developed the first ADA in 1990. It was a truly overwhelming bipartisan effort. As I said, as I was the chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very closely with then-Senator Bob Dole who had been the majority leader and then was the ranking minority member in the Senate. We had invaluable support, of course, from the White House. President George Bush, Bush 41, George Herbert Walker Bush, was very helpful; Key members of the administration--I especially want to note for the record Boyden Gray, White House counsel, without whose support and intervention the law probably would never have been passed; Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, again a key player in getting the ADA passed in 1990; Sam Skinner, then Transportation Secretary, also was very much involved. The introduction of the ADA Restoration Act last Thursday and the reaction to it has been a breath of fresh air amidst all the going back and forth politically in Washington, very much in the same spirit we had in 1990 when members of both parties embraced the legislation as something that can and should be done and should be beyond partisanship. There was a sense that on this one measure, we could put partisanship aside and come together as a unified body and make a real difference in the lives of our fellow citizens who have disabilities. The fact is, we all take pride in the progress we have made in the last 17 years. Nobody wants to go backward. The ADA, as I said, is one of the great landmark civil rights legislation of the 20th century, a long overdue emancipation proclamation for millions of Americans with disabilities. Again, we removed most physical barriers. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can get jobs and have equal opportunity in the workplace. There were four goals of the ADA, four pillars, so to speak: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The reach of the ADA revolution struck me some time ago in Washington. I attended a downtown convention of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with very severe impairments. They arrived in Washington on trains and planes and buses built to accommodate people in wheelchairs. They came to the hotel on the Metro and in regular buses all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They navigated city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to accommodate people with disabilities. There were sign language interpreters on the dias so people with hearing disabilities could be full participants. For those of us able-bodied, these many changes are all but invisible, but for a person in a wheelchair, for a person without sight, for a person with deafness, they are transforming and liberating. So our provisions in ADA outlawed discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace and required employers to provide reasonable accommodations. But, as I said, a problem has arisen. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who is to be covered by the ADA. The courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an individual with a disability. As a consequence, millions of people whom we intended to be covered by the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, yes, even cancer, are not protected anymore. In a ruling this spring, the Eleventh Circuit Court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not disabled under the ADA. Looking back to the legislative history, it is abundantly clear that we in Congress intended that the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances, such as taking medicine or using an assistive device. Nonetheless, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court has all but ignored congressional intent. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created an absurd and unintended catch 22-type situation. People with serious health conditions, such as epilepsy or diabetes or seeing problems, who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent and, thus, more able to work may find they are no longer protected by the ADA. If these individuals are no longer covered by the ADA, then their request for reasonable accommodations in the workplace can be ignored, denied, or they can be fired. On the other hand, if they stop taking their medication or stop using an assistive device, they will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA but they won't be qualified for the job. Think about what kind of a position this puts a person in. Let's say you have epilepsy and you take medication to control it. That makes you able to work. But under the Court decisions, if you take a job and the employer finds out you have epilepsy, they can fire you. And guess what. You are not covered by the ADA. On the other hand, if I have epilepsy, I don't take my medication, and I have seizures, I will never get the job. This is absurd. It is absurd, and it is wrong. It flies in the face of clear, unambiguous congressional intent. I often tell people that when we write laws here, we don't write every little thing into the law. That is why we have hearings, that is why we have committee prints, and that is why we have report language that goes with the laws we pass. It is very clear and it was common agreement at that time, on both sides of the aisle and with the White House, that the law was designed to protect any individual who is treated less favorably because of current, past, or a perceived disability--a perceived disability. Listen to the report language. Here is the report language we had in the Senate report accompanying the bill: Whether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids. The House report says the same thing and goes on to say: For example, a person who is hard of hearing is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing, even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life activity, are covered under the definition of disability, even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication. This is important because if an individual, I repeat, is not considered to be disabled under the ADA, then they do not have the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For example, as I said, they are not entitled to reasonable accommodation on the job and they can be fired for any reason--let's say not being able to do the job without an accommodation. So if you are a person with a disability and you have an assistive device, you get the job and you need a reasonable accommodation so you can do the job, but the employer says: I am not going to do it, well, guess what. They do not have to because the individual is no longer considered disabled. But if they didn't have the assistive device, they wouldn't get the job in the first place. This is what has happened, and it has created consternation among people with disabilities who want to use assistive devices and take medication and do things--they want to work. But if they do that, they are no longer protected by the ADA. So that is why we have introduced the ADA restoration bill, to again overcome the hurdles the Supreme Court has pronounced in three or four cases--I won't get into those now--and so that we get to the original intent of the ADA, which is to say you are covered if you have a past disability, a present disability, or you are perceived to have a disability. Again, I repeat, we have a supreme absurdity confronting people with disabilities now. People with serious health conditions, such as epilepsy or diabetes, who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent, more able to work, may now find they are no longer covered by the ADA. One last thing. In another Supreme Court case, the Court held there must be ``a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' This, too, has resulted in a much more restrictive requirement than Congress intended and has had the effect of excluding countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the law. So the situation cries out for a modest, reasonable legislative fix, and that is exactly what Senator Specter and Congressmen Hoyer and Sensenbrenner and I and many other cosponsors propose to do with the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Our bill amends the definition of disability so that people Congress originally intended to be protected are covered under the ADA. Mr. President, 17 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support ADA restoration. As I said, the companion bill was introduced in the House last week. Now, as with the ADA in 1990, it will take some time. We have to have hearings. It has been referred to four committees in the House and referred to the HELP Committee here in the Senate. But I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with which we are approaching this legislation. We have said all along, going clear back to the 1980s, that the Americans with Disabilities Act is supremely nonpartisan. There is nothing Republican, Democratic, liberal, conservative, or anything else about this. It is simply doing the right thing. As we look back over the last 17 years, we can take pride in what we have done, particularly when you see the curb cuts all over America or you go into movie theaters now and you see places where people with wheelchairs can come in or you go into restaurants now and see families taking out somebody who maybe has a seeing-eye dog or a companion dog. We have even made the Capitol of the United States fully accessible to people with disabilities. As I said, every place all over America, even sports stadiums, has been transformed.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, we have come to the point where we have to go back and put into law what it is we originally intended and to cover people now who are caught in this absurd catch-22 situation. We have an opportunity again to come together as Republicans and Democrats. We have a chance to come together for millions of Americans with disabilities. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to restore Congress's original intent, to ensure that Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination. So on behalf of Senator Specter and myself, the Senate bill is S. 1881, and we encourage Senators to take a look at it. We hope we can get good bipartisan support, have our hearings on it this fall, and get this enacted as soon as possible, probably early next year sometime. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Evan Eschmeyer and Stacie Milbern of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am joining, today, with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Today, July 26, marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century, and a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. As chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I take pride in the progress we have made as a Nation since 1990. We have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunity in the workplace. We have advanced the 4 goals of the ADA, equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. So today is a day, first and foremost, to celebrate all that has been accomplished over the last 17 years. But despite that progress, there is a problem. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who should be protected under the ADA. And the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, millions of people we intended to be protected under the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, and cancer, are not protected any more. In a ruling just this spring, the 11th Circuit court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. Looking back through the legislative history, it is abundantly clear that Congress intended that the protections in the ADA apply to all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances, such as taking medication or using an assistive device. In the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee report Congress said: Whether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids. The House Education and Labor Committee report says the same thing, and goes on to say: For example, a person who is hard of hearing is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing, even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life activity are covered under . . . the definition of disability, even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication. Nonetheless, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court ignored Congressional intent. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created an absurd and unintended Catch 22. People with serious health conditions like epilepsy or diabetes who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent, and more able to work, may find that they are no longer protected by the ADA. If these individuals are no longer covered under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable accommodation at work can be denied, or they can be fired. On the other hand, if they stop taking their medication, they will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, but they will be unable to do their job. This is not just absurd, it is wrong. It flies in the face of clear, unambiguous Congressional intent. When we passed the law, there was common agreement on both sides of the aisle, and on the part of the White House, that the law was designed to protect any individual who is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. This situation cries out for a modest, reasonable legislative fix, and that is exactly what we are doing, today, by introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Our bill amends the definition of ``disability'' so that people who Congress originally intended to be protected from discrimination are covered under the ADA. Mr. Presdient, 17 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support ADA Restoration. A companion bill is being introduced, today, in the House. As with the original passage of the ADA in 1990, it is going to take time to hold hearings and build strong majorities. But I look forward to working to restore Congress' original intent, and, once again, to ensure that Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am joining, today, with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Today, July 26, marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century, and a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. As chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I take pride in the progress we have made as a Nation since 1990. We have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunity in the workplace. We have advanced the 4 goals of the ADA, equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. So today is a day, first and foremost, to celebrate all that has been accomplished over the last 17 years. But despite that progress, there is a problem. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who should be protected under the ADA. And the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, millions of people we intended to be protected under the ADA, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, and cancer, are not protected any more. In a ruling just this spring, the 11th Circuit court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. Looking back through the legislative history, it is abundantly clear that Congress intended that the protections in the ADA apply to all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances, such as taking medication or using an assistive device. In the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee report Congress said: Whether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids. The House Education and Labor Committee report says the same thing, and goes on to say: For example, a person who is hard of hearing is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing, even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life activity are covered under . . . the definition of disability, even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication. Nonetheless, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court ignored Congressional intent. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created an absurd and unintended Catch 22. People with serious health conditions like epilepsy or diabetes who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent, and more able to work, may find that they are no longer protected by the ADA. If these individuals are no longer covered under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable accommodation at work can be denied, or they can be fired. On the other hand, if they stop taking their medication, they will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, but they will be unable to do their job. This is not just absurd, it is wrong. It flies in the face of clear, unambiguous Congressional intent. When we passed the law, there was common agreement on both sides of the aisle, and on the part of the White House, that the law was designed to protect any individual who is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. This situation cries out for a modest, reasonable legislative fix, and that is exactly what we are doing, today, by introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Our bill amends the definition of ``disability'' so that people who Congress originally intended to be protected from discrimination are covered under the ADA. Mr. Presdient, 17 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support ADA Restoration. A companion bill is being introduced, today, in the House. As with the original passage of the ADA in 1990, it is going to take time to hold hearings and build strong majorities. But I look forward to working to restore Congress' original intent, and, once again, to ensure that Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will take a minute. I understand we are getting ready to vote very soon. But I cleared this, of course, with Senator Durbin. He was fine with the second-degree amendment. This amendment that I offered would be to provide for loan forgiveness for young attorneys who go into civil legal practice, legal services. Now, the Durbin amendment provides for loan guarantees for those going into prosecution, or I should say criminal work, prosecuting attorneys, district attorney's offices, that type of thing, which is fine. But we also need them for civil legal attorneys, those who are going into legal services. They make the bottom of the ladder. I mean, even the district attorney's offices pay them more than legal services. So I think it is needed in both areas. Right now, with the costs of law school and with the need we have for legal services attorneys, this amendment is drastically needed. Right now, about 50 percent of the people eligible for legal services, which means they had household income for a family of four of $25,800 or less--$25,000 a year or less--only 50 percent of them were able to get help from a legal aid program. That is 50 percent of the people who actually went and sought help. You can imagine how many more there are out there who, for one reason or another, did not seek the help. Estimates are that closer to 80 percent of low-income Americans have unmet civil legal needs. Right now there is 1 legal aid attorney for 6,800 low-income Americans. One legal services attorney for every 6,800 low-income Americans. Compare that to 1 attorney for every 525 middle- income Americans. Well, again, the key reason for this is the inability of the legal aid programs to recruit and retain attorneys. Given the financial realities, many law graduates who are able to take positions with legal aid leave after 1 or 2 years. One Midwestern program cited a turnover rate of 60 percent over a 2-year period of time, with an average tenure for new attorneys of 17 months. So what my amendment does is it builds on the existing loan repayment and retention programs for Federal prosecutors and 29 other Government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Congress. All we are saying is, if we are going to do it for people who come to work here or the Department of Justice, why not for civil legal aid attorneys? This would provide for up to $6,000 a year in loan repayments. You would have to sign it, you would have to be at least 3 years as a legal services attorney to get that, with a maximum lifetime benefit of $40,000. The amendment authorizes up to $10 million to do this. We know how many there are. We are only talking about 1,200 nationwide. So we know it does not cost a lot of money, but it is sorely needed. Time and again, people who have unmet civil legal needs, whether it is child custody, divorce proceedings, it could be landlord-tenant problems, these people do not have access to the civil legal system. Then they take the law into their own hands, they do something else. By providing good legal services to low-income people, we basically keep people from doing things they otherwise would not do if they had some legal help available to them. People get desperate. I can tell you this, that the strongest bulwark against domestic violence is legal aid attorneys. What happens is, when someone is in an abusive relationship and they need legal help and they cannot afford it, that is when you get problems. Now, I can speak about this from experience. I started out my life as a legal services attorney. That is what I did when I got out of law school. I thought it was a great opening. I thought it was a great thing to do. You get the cases no one else takes. You get people who are at the end of their rope. Maybe they have tried to get legal help and they cannot get it anywhere else. You are sort of the last hope they have for settling something civilly. I can tell you from my time as a legal services attorney, we had a lot of people who got in a lot of trouble simply because they did not either know we were there or they could not access the civil legal system. You have domestic violence. Some people go to jail. Or you have child custody battles that go on. I have had landlord-tenant cases where people are at the end of their rope, maybe they have a dispute with the landlord, they cannot get it resolved, so they sort of take the law into their own hands and do something rash. To me, while it is important to encourage young lawyers to get into criminal prosecution, I think it is equally as important for us to provide some help for young lawyers who want to be legal services attorneys. I see the Senator from Vermont who has been a strong supporter of our legal services program. I know of his commitment to this. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Check with the American Bar Association, with the State bar associations; they all support legal services. They know this is one way in which we can provide, as the Senator from Vermont said, access to equal justice under the law. I can remember when I was a legal services attorney in the 1970s, the case files we received. I mean, there were so many. We were there late at night. We were actually working weekends on some of these cases. You feel that maybe you are not serving their interest well because you have so many cases and so many case files. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator. I hope we can get good support on the vote for this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to Durbin amendment No. 2377.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order to bring up the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, No. 2377.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the name of the bill before us today is the College Cost Reduction Act, as it has been called. But just as appropriately it might be called ``Restoring the American Dream Act'' because that is exactly what is at stake with this critically important bill. We all know that higher education is the key to success in today's global economy. It is the key to Americans' success as individuals, but it is also the key to America's success as a nation. But over the last 6 years, the cost of college has skyrocketed 40 percent. Meanwhile, the buying power of Federal grant aid has fallen, and too many young students are being forced to turn to private loans with high interest rates. As a result, college has become a distant, unattainable dream for many Americans. For millions more who are fortunate to attend college, they graduate with two things: a college diploma and a mountain of debt. With the bill before us today, we intend to reverse these negative trends. We intend to put a college education and a fair shot at the American dream back within the reach of every American, including those of modest means. We might think of this bill as restoring the ladder of opportunity for millions of Americans. This is a bipartisan bill with support on both sides of the aisle. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their bipartisan leadership in getting this bill through committee and getting it to the Senate floor. At the same time, I take pride in the fact that college access for all was one of the six priorities we annunciated last fall. The crisis in college affordability has grown worse year after year. Year after year, Congress failed to act. Last year, we Democrats said to the American people: You give us the leadership reins and we will chart a new course. We, today, are making good on that promise. The bill before us will accomplish a number of things. Most importantly, it will increase the maximum Pell grant, and it will increase the income level at which students automatically benefit for the maximum Pell grant. It will encourage public service by providing some loan forgiveness for graduates who go into fields such as teaching, social work, nursing, and service as legal aid lawyers. The bill will give protection to borrowers by capping the monthly payments at 15 percent of discretionary income. This bill is a classic win-win-win. It is a win for the Government and for students and for taxpayers. For years, we have been concerned about the widespread abuses and excesses within the private student loan industry. What this bill does is cut excess subsidies to the private loan program by $18 billion and channel most of those savings into Pell grants. Earlier this year, in the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution, we were able to increase the maximum Pell grant by $260 to a total of $4,310. That was the first increase in Pell grants in 5 years, since the last time Democrats had the majority and I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Education and Health Programs in 2001. Now, with the bill before us today, we are pleased to build on that progress by joining with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi to boost the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year and $5,400 by 2011. I also wish to salute Senator Kennedy for crafting this Senate bill in a way that is a big improvement over the House bill. The House bill cuts interest rates on all student loans. Well, that is very expensive, and it also provides benefits to many who don't need them, such as upper-income families. The Senate bill concentrates the savings on increasing grant aid to low-income students, while providing some loan forgiveness for graduates who enter teaching, nursing, and other important but relatively low-paying jobs. Bear in mind that before the increase earlier this year, the value of the Pell grants had been drastically eroded since 2001. I wonder if there are any colleges in America that charge the same amount for tuition as they did 6 years ago. I don't think so. In fact, high school guidance counselors tell me that, for the first time, they are seeing kids giving up their dream of college because they simply can't afford it, even with loans and grants. I recently received a letter from a constituent from Indianola, IA, county seat of my home county. She told me about her daughter who graduated from college last year. Let me quote from this mother's letter. We faithfully saved for our daughter's education every month from the time I knew I was pregnant, even during a six- month period when my husband was unemployed. Since Rhiannon needed to attend a specialized college, our savings for her were not nearly high enough. Last year, Rhiannon's monthly loan payment suddenly increased to around $700 a month. How many families can afford to do this? How is this generation of young adults ever to afford the American Dream to own a home? This is not good for the future of our economy, for how will these young people be able to have purchasing power or be able to afford marriage and children? College educations must remain a choice for all of our youth in order for our Nation to compete in this global economy. This is not an exceptional case. We have all heard similar stories and received similar letters. Today, with the College Cost Reduction Act, we have an opportunity to address the crisis in college affordability in ways that will make a dramatic difference. As I said, the centerpiece in this bill is the significant increase in the maximum Pell grant and the expansion of Pell grant eligibility. Over the years, the Pell Grant Program has been enormously successful. This is America's largest need-based student grant program, and it has given millions of low-income students the opportunity to attend college, many of them the first in their families to do so. Over the years, the value of the Pell grant has eroded dramatically. Think about this: Two decades ago, the maximum Pell grant covered 51 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at a public 4- year college--51 percent. By the 2004-2005 academic year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs, and it has fallen even more over the last couple of years. In my State of Iowa, two decades ago, the Pell grants covered 61 percent of the average cost of a public 4-year college tuition, fees, and room and board--61 percent. Today, it covers about a third--about 33 percent--of those same costs. Without adequate Federal grants, students have had to rely increasingly on student loans, many with very high interest rates. More students and their parents are taking out loans and borrowing larger and larger amounts. Today, more than 60 percent of undergraduates at 4- year colleges take out loans, and the average student loan debt is more than $19,000. Indeed, Iowa students at 4-year colleges and universities graduate with an average of $22,727 in debt--the second highest rate in the country, I might add. Make no mistake, when students graduate from college with a mountain of debt, this has a major impact on their career choices. For many heavily indebted graduates, pursuing public service careers as teachers, social workers, legal aid attorneys or a host of others becomes out of the question. A recent study found that 23 percent of public college graduates and 38 percent of private college graduates would have an unmanageable level of student debt if they tried to live on the starting salary of a teacher. The burden of student debt also has a big impact on major life decisions. A student loan survey found the probability of owning a home decreases as the level of student debt increases. Well, that makes sense. In a survey, 30 percent of students said they delayed buying a car because of student loan debt, 21 percent said they delayed having children, and 14 percent said they delayed getting married. I know of one very talented member of my own staff who, even in his mid 30s, was burdened with tens of thousands of dollars of debt while attending law school. He then got married, he and his wife had a couple of children, and he felt increasingly burdened by the debt. He finally had no choice but to leave his relatively modest-paying Senate job for a more lucrative position in the private sector. He concluded this was the only way he would ever be able to pay off his college loan debt so he could then start saving for his own children's college education. I believe there are more and more young people like that--they want to do public service-type jobs, but with the amount of debt they have, they can't afford to do so. The College Cost Reduction Act is a sound bill. It is a good bill. What is more, it would not cost the taxpayers a dime. As I said, the bill saved $18 billion by cutting wasteful, excessive subsidies to private lenders, and of that amount $17 billion will be used to fund increases to Pell grants and the income-based loan repayment program, with the remaining $1 billion dedicated to deficit reduction. Predictably, the private lenders have mobilized a small army of lobbyists to argue that reductions in their subsidies would be devastating to their industry. Well, this simply is not true. The fact is that it is high time we eliminated the waste and gross excesses in Federal subsidies to some of these private lenders. Because of those subsidies, the student loan industry has reaped huge profits and become one of the most lucrative industries in America. Take Sallie Mae, for example, the Nation's largest student lender-- fantastically profitable, thanks to these overly generous subsidies over the past 30 years. The corporation now is moving forward with plans to sell itself. This corporation that has been loaning money to students now is going to go private, sell itself, with a windfall of some $25 billion. Together, Sallie Mae chairman Albert Lord and their CEO, Tim Fitzpatrick, have collected total compensation--get this, the two of them--of $367 million since 1999. Two people. And we are wondering why students have such high debts. In fact, as the Washington Post reported a short while ago, Mr. Lord, the Sallie Mae chairman, is currently building his own private golf course on 244 acres in suburban Maryland at a cost of up to $15 million. This is the head, folks, of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan industry in America. So we shouldn't shed any tears for the private loan companies and their executives. They are doing quite well. Quite frankly, they are going to continue to receive Federal subsidies. They are going to continue to make loans. They are going to continue to make profits. But maybe some of the future CEOs in this industry will have to forgo the luxury of having their own private golf course. The College Cost Reduction Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year. It will make college affordable for our young people, especially those of modest means. It will go a long way toward ensuring our young people are not overly burdened with student loan debt after they graduate so they can afford to pursue careers that not only benefit them but make the world a better place in which to live. It will put the American dream and that ladder of opportunity once again within the reach of every American. I urge my colleagues to support this long overdue and vitally important bill. Again, I wish to compliment Senator Kennedy for so many years of leadership on this issue, especially the issue of education and making sure that college is affordable to our lowest-income students. I thank him, I thank Senator Enzi for working together on this bipartisan bill, and, hopefully, before the day ends at not too late an hour, we can pass this bill and give more hope and opportunity to a lot of these young people I see sitting on the Senate floor and to so many other young people throughout America. Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his outstanding leadership on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr. HARKIN. I hope the Senator doesn't mind if I hold one up for Iowa. This is a teacher in Iowa: average salary, $27,284; average loan debt, $27,727. Here are your monthly payments. Under this bill right now, the relief will be $1,344, and the amount forgiven, $16,057. This is going to be great for teachers, going into teaching in the State of Iowa. I can't speak for what it is like in Massachusetts, but in Iowa we are losing about upwards of a third to half of our teachers in the second or third year because they cannot afford to teach and pay back their loans. Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his great leadership. As I said, this, to me, is the core of what we are trying to do with this bill. It is not only to help these students get the Pell grants to go to college but also so they can pursue their dreams and do the kind of work they want to do, not what they are forced to do because they have a mountain of debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for pointing this out. I especially want to underline what the Senator said about the public services for individuals with disabilities and the elderly. Because of the Olmstead Supreme Court decision, because of what is happening now, as you know, we are moving more and more people out of institutional-based settings and into community-based settings. A lot of these people are going to need some help and personal assistance services to get going so they can earn money and pay taxes. I often tell the story of my nephew Kelly. Of course, he was injured in the military, so he has always had VA services. But he has a nurse who comes in. He is a paraplegic. He gets up in the morning, a nurse comes in, gets him ready for the day, he goes to work, comes in, and when he gets home at night, someone takes care of him. If it weren't for that, he wouldn't be working and paying taxes. That is, thankfully, because he is in the VA and they do that, but for anybody else who has a disability, they don't get that kind of service. More and more, we will be working with people, individuals with disabilities, in this sector. A lot of people want to do this. They cannot do this, I say to the Senator, with the mountain of debt they have. They just can't afford to do this work. The only thing I might disagree with the Senator on, he said this is one of the most important aspects. I think this is ``the'' most important aspect of the bill. I would say to the Senator, I started my life as a legal aid lawyer. So many low-income families need assistance, just legal assistance with debts, housing, divorces, family problems. They can't afford it. A lot of young people want to become a legal aid attorney. They may not stay there all their lives, but they would like to do this for a few years. It is public service. They get their feet wet right away in a lot of legal work. I always tell young people in law school: If you really want to figure out what legal work is all about, become a legal aid attorney out of law school. You will get the cases no one else wants. You will get the cases people have given up on. I tell you, that will make you a better lawyer than anything in your lifetime. A lot of young people want to do this. They cannot do it with the debt they have now.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Valenti, Allie Weeda, Rebecca Anderson, and Robyn Chavez be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of H.R. 2669, the Higher Education Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I ask unanimous consent that Kristin Anderson and Evan Jurkovich of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.