Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Luke Lynch and Peter Lillis of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I have no problem.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this week is National Suicide Prevention Week. In honor of the families who have lost a military family member to suicide, I wish to speak now about an amendment I have to this bill to address one of the most critical issues facing our troops right now, the issue of suicide. The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention bill was signed into law this past November. But that has to do with veterans. However, the Department of Defense has reported an increase in suicides among Active-Duty soldiers. With extended combat tours to 15 months from 12 months, with many servicemembers on their third or even fourth rotation to Afghanistan or Iraq, the psychological strains are enormous. The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health has stated that both the VA and the Department of Defense are not prepared to deal with this increase in mental health needs of Active-Duty service men and women. Nearly each year of the 5-year-old war in Iraq and the 7 years of war in Afghanistan, the suicide rate has increased. Last year suicides among Active-Duty soldiers reached their highest level since the Army began keeping records 28 years ago. Suicide was the leading cause of noncombat deaths in Iraq in 2007. This trend has begun to repeat itself in 2008. So far there have been 62 confirmed suicides as well as 31 deaths under investigation that are suspected to be suicides, which means this year's gruesome numbers could surpass the record of 115 suicides set last year. The number of attempted suicides or self- inflicted injuries in the Army, approximately 2,100 last year, has risen sixfold since the Iraq war began. These startling statistics should serve as a wake-up call that suicide among soldiers and veterans is more than a small problem. It is rapidly becoming a very big problem. To address this critical concern, I worked with a number of my colleagues to introduce the Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Act, S. 2585, with 20 bipartisan cosponsors. The amendment I am offering to this bill merely adds the preventative measures from this carefully crafted bill, S. 2585, to the excellent underlying language that is in the Defense authorization bill before us. The Defense authorization bill before us does increase mental health personnel and post-suicide investigations in the military. That is in the underlying bill. The amendment I am offering requires the Department of Defense to implement comprehensive suicide prevention programs within all branches of the military, including the National Guard and Reserves. Among other things, the amendment directs the Pentagon to conduct a servicewide campaign to reduce the stigma associated with mental health issues and to encourage servicemembers who are experiencing difficulties to seek help. It also engages military leadership by incorporating suicide prevention training for all servicemembers. So this amendment takes the preventative measures from the bill we introduced with 20 bipartisan cosponsors and adds it to the underlying Defense authorization bill. The language I am talking about was coordinated carefully with each branch of the Armed Forces, and their recommended revisions were incorporated. The bill complements other recent defense legislation such as the Wounded Warriors Act, addressing the well-being and welfare of our servicemembers and their families. This Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Act has the endorsement of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Suicide Prevention Action Network, the National Military Families Association, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. We know these kinds of programs can make a big difference. In the early 1990s, one in every four deaths among Active-Duty Air Force personnel was from suicide. The Air Force implemented the kind of comprehensive suicide prevention program required by the bill we have introduced and by this amendment, and by 2002 the suicide rate had been reduced by over a third. Violent crime and family violence also were reduced after the preventative program was implemented. We cannot just sit idly by and watch as these young brave Americans, who are making great sacrifices, are left alone to fend for themselves, as they suffer the pain and anguish of post-traumatic stress disorder, the despair of losing friends to roadside bombs, or the depression and helplessness felt after multiple deployments that are stressing their families to the breaking point. This is not just about the armed servicemembers who commit suicide; it is about the deep and painful despair that drives them to do it. I know the Army says they have effective programs in place. But if that is true, where are the outcomes? Why do we have an ever-increasing suicide rate in the military? The GAO just reported last week that the DOD--Department of Defense-- does not even know if the post-deployment health reassessment surveys are being completed. Now, for those who may not have heard about this tool, the PDHRA, as it is called, surveys health and mental health concerns within 90 and 120 days of deployment. Well, how can DOD say they are good stewards of mental health when they cannot show us they are even doing these screenings? The DOD's position on this amendment I am offering is that it ``would establish a legislative mandate for programs already ongoing or within the Secretary's authority to establish. However, the administration supports the goals of this legislation and we look forward to working with Congress to address these concerns.'' Well, they may have the current authority, but the numbers do not bear out they are actually doing it. Frankly, my staff has met--and I have also--with veterans in Iowa who say that while programs like this are in place and working well in some units, it is not a universal experience for Armed Services members. Too many brave young men and women are falling through the cracks, and the DOD is simply not doing a thorough job here. One ignored soldier who has had mental health problems--who is stressed out, who has seen his buddies' arms and legs disappear from bombings or had their lives taken away, who is on multiple deployments, and he has kids back home--one soldier with those kinds of stresses who is ignored is one soldier too many. That is why Congress has to act to make this a priority. Yes, this is going to be a legislative mandate, and I intend it to be that. When GAO tells us that DOD cannot even tell us what they are doing, then I think it is time for a legislative mandate. The military does an extraordinarily good job of treating our warriors' physical wounds and preventing death and disability. It is time to place an equal priority to treating their psychological wounds, their emotional wounds, and preventing suicides. That is exactly what this amendment will accomplish. As I have said, there is already excellent language in the underlying Defense authorization bill to expand mental health services for Active- Duty servicemembers. This amendment would add suicide prevention training for armed servicemembers and their families. It would add additional postdeployment assistance and a stigma reduction outreach campaign to aid in those efforts--a campaign to reduce the stigma of a soldier who is having mental health problems from seeking help. We all know--those of us who have been in the military--what it is like. You do not want to admit you are having psychological problems, that this, somehow, is something you are not supposed to have happen to you. So you have to reduce the stigma of this so these young men and women who are having these problems will seek help and by getting that help will heal their psychological wounds. It is a simple, commonsense approach to a pervasive, disturbing trend, as I said, a very growing problem in the military. So I hope all my colleagues can join with us to support the dedicated men and women serving our country and support this needed amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Denison Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Denison Community School District received a 2002 Harkin grant totaling $904,200 which it used to help with renovations at the elementary school including the installation of air conditioning. The district also received a 2005 construction grant to help build a new middle school and make renovations at the former middle school. This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. Excellent new schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Denison Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education, president Rod Bradley, vice president Brenda Martens, Mark Johnson, Kris Rowedder and Les Lewis and former board member Craig Dozark. I would also like to recognize superintendent Michael Pardun, former superintendent Bill Wright, business manager Larry Struck and the co-chairs of the Vote Yes Committee, Dr. Scott Bowker and Chad Langenfeld. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra-modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Denison Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the MFL MarMac Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The MFL MarMac Community School District received a 2001 Harkin grant totaling $162,500 which it used to help build an addition at the high school for the music programs and to remodel the former music classrooms to expand the library. The district also received a 2003 fire safety grant for $25,000 to upgrade the fire alarm system in the Monona building. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the MFL MarMac Community School District. In particular, I'd like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education, president Jill Winkowski, vice president Patti Ruff, Patty Burkle, Toni Niel, Brian Meyer, Terry Mohs and Greg Formanek and former members Craig Strutt, Norm Lincoln and Jerry Schroeder and superintendent Dale Crozier. I would also like to recognize the many individuals who served on the MFL MarMac facility committee which provided valuable input on meeting the needs of the school district. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra- modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the MFL MarMac Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Estherville-Lincoln Central Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Estherville-Lincoln Central Community School District received three fire safety grants totaling $350,000 to make safety improvements throughout the district, including the installation of new fire alarm systems at the elementary and middle schools and replacement of doors and hardware at the high school. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Estherville-Lincoln Central Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education--president Molly Anderson, vice president Karen Butler, Nancy Anderson, Mike Karels, Don Schlitz, Jodie Grieg, and Duane Schnell and former board members, Gordon Juhl, Tom Ross, and Gary Feddern. I would also like to recognize superintendent Richard Magnuson, elementary principal Kris Schlievert, former middle school principal Steve Schroeder, former high school principal Susan Bish, business manager Kate Woods, maintenance supervisors Al Hall and Larry Enderson, Estherville Police Chief Eric Milburn and Estherville Fire Chief Randy Cody. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin School grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Estherville-Lincoln Central Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Postville Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Postville Community School District received a 2002 Harkin grant totaling $1 million which it used to help build an addition to the elementary school that included a new media center and administrative offices. The district also received a 2003 grant totaling $265,408 for renovations at the high school. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Postville Community School District. In particular, I'd like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education, president Brad Rekow, Jeff Cox, Laura Lubka, Jamie Smith and Dan Schutte and former board members Staci Malcom, Kathy Ohloff, Gary Catterson, Dennis Koenig and Dennis White. I would also like to recognize the chairman of the district's capital campaign, Cloy Kuhse, superintendent Darwin Winke, former superintendent David Strudthoff and architect Mark Moine of Gardner Architecture. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra-modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Postville Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Perry Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Perry Community School District received Harkin grants totaling $505,095 which it used to help build two additions at the high school to provide additional classrooms and administrative offices and to make fire safety repairs in the middle school. This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. Excellent new schools like Perry High School do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Perry Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education--President Dave Menz, Vice President Kathy Powell, Dan Wilhelmi, Darek Vankirk, Scott Seeley, board secretary Nancy Gee and board treasurer Dwayne Hochhalter and former board members--Gary Huitt, Kent Feiedrichsen, Larry Lyons, Rudy Zagar, board secretary Mary Boege, Chuck Painter, Shirley Keenan-Allyn and board secretary Dean Stumbo. I would also like to recognize Superintendent Randall McCaulley, former Superintendent Ellen Wrzeski, high school principal Dan Marburger and the Kids 2000 Committee. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Perry Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Davis County Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Davis County Community School District received a 2003 Harkin grant for $498,000 to help remodel the north entrance of the high school. The district also received two fire safety grants totaling $161,000 to make needed repairs to buildings throughout the district. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Davis County Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education--President Marty Owen, Vice President Ken Wuthrich, Edward Reese, Jr., Rob Melvin, Susan Knapp, Rita Grob, and Rob Lynch. I would also like to recognize Superintendent Sam Miller and former Superintendent Anne Morgan. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Davis County Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Clear Creek Amana Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Clear Creek Amana Community School District received a 2005 Harkin grant totaling $500,000, which it used to help build North Bend Elementary School in North Liberty. This school is a modern, state-of- the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. Excellent new schools like North Bend Elementary do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the dedicated educators in the Clear Creek Amana School District, which serves the towns of Tiffin, Oxford and North Liberty, as well as the historic Amana Colonies. The district has 1,420 students in grades K-12, and is growing steadily. It takes great pride in its teaching staff of 118 fully certified teachers, more than 30 percent of whom have been with the district at least 15 years. To have so many long-serving teachers is unusual in education today, and it speaks volumes about the quality of this school district, as well as the dedication and loyalty of its teaching staff. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Clear Creek Amana district. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of Lisa Green-Douglas and Jeanne Goldsmith who served as the cochairs of the committee that won passage of the $25.5 million bond issue to build a new elementary school and a new high school in the district. I would also like to recognize the members of the school board: Jim Seelman, Don Schaapveld, Tim Hennes, Kathi Huebner, Kevin Kinney, Elizabeth Momany, Matthew Croco, and Kathy Zimmerman as well as Superintendent Paula Vincent and elementary school principal Brenda Parker. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultra-modern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have got to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Clear Creek Amana School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers administrators, and school board members in the Boone Community School District and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Boone Community School District received a 2005 Harkin grant totaling $183,500. The grant helped the district renovate and convert several classrooms at the high school into state-of-the-art science labs, install technology infrastructure at a new middle school, and provide a fiber optic connection to Franklin Elementary School, to provide high speed Internet access. This project provides the type of facilities that befit the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Boone Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the members of the school board, Dr. Jeff Anderson, Pam Boehm, Everett Johnson, Kirk Leeds and Brad O'Neal and former members Stan Brandmeyer, Jim Malloy, and Paulette Newbold. I would also recognize superintendent Dr. Theron Schutte, high school principal Dave Kapfer, former middle school principal Nate Heying, Franklin principal Dan Gould, technology coordinator Bog Patterson, director of buildings and grounds Dean Berkland, and John Haila from Haila Engineering. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have got to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Boone Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Independence Community School District and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Independence Community School District received two Harkin grants totaling $450,000. A 1999 fire safety grant for $100,000 was used to install smoke detectors and replace doors at the high school. A 2005 grant totaling $350,000 was used to help build the Early Childhood Center to provide five classrooms for prekindergarten programs. This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Independence Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education, President Dawnye Sturtz, Vice President K.C. Robb, Joseph Olsen, Charlie McCardle, and John Christiansen; former board members, Martin Brown, Kevin Greenley, Bob Reiff, and Shelly Whited, as well as elementary principal Dr. Mary Jean Blaisdell and Superintendent Devin Embray. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have got to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Independence Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I honor an Iowan who has shown tremendous strength of spirit, as well as a fierce determination and world-class talent. Olympic gymnast Shawn Machel Johnson has been and continues to be a model of character and fitness, as well as a source of inspiration for all Americans. Shawn recently returned from Beijing, where she made us all very proud, competing in the 2008 Olympics and winning one gold and three silver medals. The gold medal was for her performance in the balance beam finals, while the silver medals were for the team competition, the women's all-around, and the floor individual finals. Since Johnson was 3 years old, she has exhibited a love for gymnastics, and received constant support and encouragement from her parents Teri and Doug Johnson, and coaches Liang Qiao and Liwen Zhuang. She is greatly admired and respected by her fellow gymnasts at Chow's Gymnastics and Dance in West Des Moines, where she has been training since she joined the facility at age 6. Her training and her strong commitment to the sport have propelled her to success in the series of competitions that led her to the Beijing Summer Olympics. In addition to her rigorous training of up to 25 hours per week, she has also excelled academically. She is now in her junior year at Valley High School in West Des Moines, and has been on the ``A'' Honor Roll. I believe very strongly that promoting fitness and providing quality education are both key factors in ensuring that children have a bright and successful future. Shawn Johnson is an inspiration to Iowa's young people to stay active, be studious, do what they love, and follow their dreams. I would like to congratulate Johnson for bringing home four Olympic medals and commend her for her outstanding commitment to the sport of gymnastics. I hope that she continues to pursue her passion and that we will see her endearing smile and more of her amazing performances in London in 2012.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I honor an Iowan who has courageously pursued her dreams through great adversity and who has displayed outstanding character and grace throughout her life. Lori ``Lolo'' Jones recently returned from Beijing, where she competed as a hurdler in the 2008 Olympic Games. Lolo made us all very proud as she represented the United States in Beijing. Although she did not come away from Beijing with a medal, she realized her dream of competing in the Olympics and was a model of athleticism, sportsmanship, and determination. Lolo has had seemingly limitless energy, a positive attitude and an intense focus on running since she was a child. It is these characteristics that have allowed her to overcome what many would consider to be challenging circumstances, including the fact that her family relocated frequently throughout her childhood. As a student at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, she excelled at running as well as academics. After graduating from Roosevelt, Lolo became the first in her family to attend college when she enrolled at Louisiana State University, where she excelled on the LSU track team. She graduated with an economics degree and a minor in Spanish, yet deferred seeking a career in her field of study, determined to pursue her running career instead. She worked part-time jobs to support herself and to have free time to travel for competitions. After missing an opportunity to compete in Athens in 2004, her former LSU coach persuaded sponsors to recognize Lolo's great potential, allowing her to devote herself to becoming a world-class professional athlete. Competing in and winning many races around the world in the years leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Lolo became a highly respected athlete, not only for her performances, but for her exemplary sportsmanship and generosity. And, through it all, Lolo never forgot where she began her journey. She returned to Roosevelt High School earlier this year to make a donation for improvements to the track, and also for new shoes and equipment for the track team. She also donated winnings from a recent race to a victim of the flooding that ravaged Iowa this spring. I salute Lolo Jones for her extraordinary discipline and hard work, for her determination to improve and excel as an athlete, and also for her grace, generosity, and strength of character. She has been, and will continue to be, a wonderful role model for all athletes and for all young people seeking to excel in their field. I congratulate her on all of her achievements and on realizing her dream of competing in the Olympics. I hope and expect that we will see Lolo again in London in 2012, this time hurdling her way toward Olympic gold.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the American Society of Hematology, which is observing its 50th anniversary this year, and to salute the advances hematologists have been able to make in biomedical research, largely as a result of the funding for the National Institutes of Health that many of us in the Senate fight for each year. The American Society of Hematologists--ASH--represents more than 15,000 clinicians and scientists committed to the study and treatment of blood and blood-related diseases, including blood cancers, bleeding and clotting diseases, and hereditary disorders. Hematologists have made remarkable contributions to the advancement of biomedical research and are active participants in NIH biomedical research programs, recipients of NIH grants, and contributors to NIH's biomedical research accomplishments. I am pleased to note that some of this groundbreaking research is being conducted in Iowa by ASH member Dr. George Weiner and his team at the Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa. Hematologists have been at the forefront of some of the most remarkable advancements in medicine over the past half century. ASH members have turned Federal research dollars into effective treatments for diseases that were once disabling or a death sentence, and have been pioneers in the fields of bone marrow transplantation and gene therapy. By the NIH's own estimates, the overall 5-year survival rate for childhood cancers rose to nearly 80 percent during the 1990s from under 60 percent in the 1970s. A diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia was fatal for every child who developed it in the 1960s, but today, after new combinations of drugs were developed by hematology researchers, and aggressive treatment of the brain and spinal fluid were incorporated, approximately 80 percent of children with the disease are cured. NIH also notes that the emergence of new, more precise ways to treat cancer, such as drugs that target abnormal proteins in cancer cells, have contributed to a dramatic increase in the average life expectancy for Americans. Again, hematologists have been at the forefront of these discoveries. Acute promyelocytic leukemia--APL--was once described as the most malignant form of acute leukemia. Today, the treatment of APL has become a model for treating cancer with targeted therapy. In combination with chemotherapy, targeted treatment has significantly improved survival in patients with APL and raised remission rates to about 85 percent. In the 1950s the only treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia-- CML--was radiation of the spleen, granting patients about 30 months of survival. Analysis of the CML-specific chromosomal translocation allowed the development of imatinib, a gene-targeting drug that is the paradigm for a new generation of ``smart'' drugs that allow disease- specific therapy. Using this non toxic oral drug, more than 75 percent of patients diagnosed with CML achieve a durable, complete cytogenetic remission. I have consistently fought for increases to NIH annual budget, and will continue to due so to ensure that hematologists and researchers around the Nation continue to have the resources necessary to lead in new fields of biomedical investigation and translate new scientific discoveries into improved diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive strategies. Again, I salute the American Society of Hematology for a magnificent first 50 years. With continued NIH funding, I am confident that hematologists will have even greater successes in treating and eliminating blood diseases over the next 50 years.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Allamakee Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin Grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Allamakee Community School District received a 2004 Harkin Grant totaling $394,382 for a collaborative project addressing a myriad of needs throughout the community. After eight failed efforts to pass a referendum to make improvements to the high school, it was time to think outside the box. Community leaders established the PRIDE committee to undertake a comprehensive planning process that looked at the needs of the school district as well as those of the community. The result was a proposal to renovate the high school and build an addition to the existing building. The committee also recommended building a new facility across the street from the high school to house a satellite center for Northeast Iowa Community College, a community wellness center, a senior center, and a youth center. This project was a unique partnership between the school district, city, county and community college. And their hard work paid off with the passage of a $10 million bond issue approved by 78 percent of the voters. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the patrons, staff, administration, and governance in the Allamakee Community School District. I would like to recognize a number of individuals for their outstanding leadership on the project, in particular, members of the Allamakee PRIDE Committee--Michael Meyers from Veterans Memorial Hospital, Dave Martin from Martin Funeral Home, Dennis Lyons from Farmers and Merchant's Bank, Joe Cunningham from the Waukon City Council, Patty Fosaaen from the Allamakee Board of Education, superintendent of schools David Herold and former superintendent of schools John Speer. I would also like to recognize members of the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors--Kathy Campbell, Lenny Burke, and the late Bill Clark; members of the Board of Education--President Tom Baxter, Bob Hager, Scott Melcher, Dwight Watkins and former member Sheryl Evanson; members of the Waukon City Council--former mayor Dwight Jones, Steve Wiedner, Rod Peterson and former members Drew Hager and Duane DeWalle; and several key school district administrators-- buildings and grounds manager Dennis Mahr, business manager Janice Rea, junior high principal Joe Griffith and assistant high school principal Bob Wasson. Finally, I would recognize some of the personnel responsible for grant writing and for the bond referendum--Safe Schools/Healthy Students project director Barb Winters, elementary principal Ann Hart, Gail Prestemon from Waukon State Bank, Mary Jo Meyer from Farm Bureau Financial Services and Allamakee Community School District librarian Linda Groe. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin School Grant Program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Allamakee Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to apologize to the Senator from North Carolina for this oversight. Our legislation, S. 3406, enjoys broad support among advocates for individuals with disabilities, and I want everyone in that community to know that Senator Dole intended to be an original cosponsor of this measure. We look forward to working closely with her and the rest of our colleagues to pass this measure when the Senate reconvenes in September.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came here to speak, obviously, in favor of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Passage of this bill today restores the Federal commitment to make a college education a reality for Americans from all walks of life. I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for all of their hard work in passing this bill. I recognize and thank my good friend, Senator Mikulski, for stepping in and shepherding this bill to final completion the other evening. The Higher Education Opportunity Act is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 10 years. It takes clear and strong action to make college more affordable for low- and middle-income students and their families, our top higher education priority. This legislation will provide families with accurate information on the cost of college at any school, as well as hold colleges accountable for skyrocketing tuition and fees. I am also proud we have saved money for students by requiring publishers to no longer bundle unnecessary materials with their textbooks, giving students the freedom to buy only what they need for their classes. I have heard from students about the need to reform the unnecessary long form that is required to receive Federal student aid. It is called the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form--FAFSA, I understand is the short term nomenclature for that. The bill we have here cuts through much of the redtape to immediately provide a 2-page application for low-income students and to phase out the current 7-page form for all students in 5 years. In recent years we have seen corruption and mismanagement in the student loan arena. This bill takes strong action to root out the lenders' improper gifts and inducements for school financial aid officers and to protect students from scurrilous private lending practices. I am proud of the many achievements of this bill. I want to take the time to highlight two initiatives included in this bill that I was proud to sponsor. I started my legal career as a legal aid lawyer. It is an experience I will never forget and always cherish. Our promise of equal justice under law rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. But right now it is almost impossible for a new lawyer, a new young lawyer, newly admitted to the bar, to make the choice that I made, to work for legal aid. The average starting salary for a legal aid lawyer is now about $35,000 a year. But the average annual loan repayment burden for a new law school graduate is $12,000. That doesn't leave a lot left over for rent or food or for starting a family. The Legal Aid Loan Repayment Program, which we have included in this bill, will make it possible for young lawyers to make a longer commitment to equal justice. The program is simple. If a legal aid lawyer agrees to make a minimum 3-year commitment, he or she will be eligible for up to $6,000 a year to help repay their student loan debt. This is a critical step to ensuring that qualified lawyers can be recruited and retained to represent low-income Americans. I particularly again thank Senator Mikulski for her great leadership in this area, both on this committee and on the Appropriations Committee, in making sure we have adequate funding for the Legal Services Corporation and now, in this bill, to make sure we have a commitment to helping legal aid lawyers repay their student loans if they want to be a legal aid lawyer for at least 3 years. I am also proud this legislation includes a Realtime Writers Program, an initiative I have long fought for to improve the quality of life for more than 30 million Americans who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. As many know, my late brother Frank was deaf for all of his life. I know from personal experience that access to culture and to news and other media was important to him and to others in having a good quality of life. Closed captioning, which many of us now take for granted on our television sets, doesn't benefit those with a hearing impairment, however. Captioning improves the quality of life of individuals seeking to read or to speak better, adults who may be functionally illiterate, immigrants learning English as a second language and children just learning to read. Captioning also helps travelers trying to get emergency information in loud settings such as airports or bus terminals or train stations. I would guess that every American at some time or another relies on the captioning on their television to get some kind of information. As part of the 1996 Telecom Act, I offered an amendment, a requirement in that bill now, that all English language television broadcasts must be realtime captioned by 2006. Every television program must be realtime captioned by 2006. That date has come and gone and all television programs are still not realtime captioned. This is due to a lack of captioners. So what has happened is that stations all across the country have asked the FCC for waivers from this requirement, which they should have because we simply do not have the supply of people trained to be realtime captioners. Passage of the Realtime Writers Act, which is now in this bill, authorizes competitive grants to recruit and train realtime writers to alleviate this shortage. This is a very good bill. It has a lot of good things in it to help low-income families and kids to be able to get to college. It alleviates some of the burdens, some debts kids have hanging over their heads when they get through. It provides, as I said, for some of the unbundling of textbook materials and things that students buy that they do not need all of. Of course, as I said, it does a lot to weed out the corruption and mismanagement in the student loan program. To close here, I often speak of the necessity of having a ladder of opportunity for our kids in this country, a ladder of opportunity for all of our citizens. A college education is an essential rung on that ladder. I am proud to support the Higher Education Opportunity Act which I believe extends that ladder of opportunity to more Americans who want to better themselves, their communities, and our country with a college education. Again, I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, and in particular Senator Mikulski for stepping in and helping, with Senator Enzi, to bring this bill to completion. Hopefully we will have an overwhelming vote in favor of this conference report later this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay homage to Senator Michael Connolly on his retirement from the Iowa Senate after 30 years of distinguished public service. Mike admirably represented the citizens of Dubuque, IA, for 10 years in the Iowa House and 20 years in the Iowa Senate. He combined a passionate love for his community with progressive politics and a strong work ethic. When Dubuque fell on hard times after the farm crisis of the 1980s and a loss of manufacturing jobs, Mike Connolly was there to ensure that the State of Iowa was a partner in the economic and cultural renaissance of the city. If you visit Dubuque today, you will find one of the most beautiful and vibrant cities in the Midwest. That did not happen by accident. Senator Connolly and other community leaders formed the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation, emphasizing the attitude that everyone would have to pull together to move the city forward. As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and I encourage you, Mr. President, and all of my Senate colleagues, to visit this jewel of a city on the Upper Mississippi. Senator Connolly is an educator by training, and although his influence has been feld in most of the education legislation of the past three decades, his interests and work have been broad and diverse. As chairman of the Transportation Committee, Senator Connolly boosted funding to make roads and bridges safer, and developed a new funding formula that recognized the need to enhance the transportation network linking the State's urban population centers. The construction of four- lane roads between Dubuque and Waterloo, Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities, has led to economic growth throughout the northeast and east- central portion of Iowa. Senator Connolly also spurred an effort to beautify Iowa's roadways through promotion of the Resource Enhancement and Protection--REAP-- program, which included ongoing funding for the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program, a partnership between the University of Northern Iowa and Iowa counties to plant prairie grasses and flowers along the State's thoroughfares. The program pays homage to Senator Connolly's father, who was a road laborer with a sixth-grade education who worked and saved so his children could receive a college education. Senator Connolly also helped modernize Iowa's election laws as chairman of the State Government Committee, including passing election day voter registration legislation and requiring that paper trails be included with electronic voting machines. He used his position on the Ways and Means Committee to give working Iowans a tax break by removing the sales tax from utility bills. He was also a leader in the legislature helping to pass antibullying and civil rights legislation that will help protect generations of Iowans to come. It would be difficult, indeed, to catalog all of Senator Mike Connolly's legislative achievements; suffice it to say he has been one of the most dedicated, hard-working and productive members in the history of the Iowa General Assembly. Iowans, especially those in the greater Dubuque community, will miss Mike's leadership. But I know he will continue to be involved in the civic life of our State and nation. His wonderful wife Martha has been a true partner with him these many years, and his accomplishments are hers as well. I wish Senator Connolly a long and happy retirement, with plenty of time to spend with his accomplished children, Maureen and John. Thank you, Mike, and Godspeed.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Medical Device Safety Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court's erroneous decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. There, the Court misread a statute designed to protect consumers by giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve medical devices as preempting state tort claims when a medical device causes harm. Riegel prevents consumers from receiving fair compensation for injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and lost wages, and it must be reversed. Congressional action should be unnecessary. When Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments, or MDA, in 1976, it did so ``[t]o provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.'' In other words, Congress passed the MDA precisely to protect consumers from dangerous medical devices. Toward that end, Congress gave the FDA the authority to approve, prior to a product entering the market, certain medical devices. For over 30 years the MDA has been in effect, and over that period FDA regulation and tort liability have complemented each other in protecting consumers. Given the MDA's purpose, and the fact it has operated successfully for 30 years, I was disheartened to find the Court twist the meaning of the statute to strip from consumers all remedies when a medical device fails. In contorted logic, the Court found that the FDA's requirements in approving a medical device preempted state laws designed to ensure that manufacturers marketed safe devices. In other words, the Court believes that a company's responsibility to its patients ends when it receives FDA approval. I strenuously disagree. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Congress intended that under the MDA, consumers would lose their only avenue for receiving compensation for injuries caused by negligent or inadequately labeled devices. Not a single member or committee report articulated the view that the statute would preempt state tort law. Nevertheless, because of the Court's decision, it is imperative that Congress act to ensure that those harmed by flawed medical devices can seek compensation. The bill introduced today addresses the Court's action by explicitly stating that actions for damages under state law are preserved. Specifically, it amends section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that the section shall not be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State. And, the bill applies retroactively to the date of the enactment of the MDA, consistent with Congress's intent when it passed that act over 30 years ago. Practically, that means that it applies to cases pending on the date of enactment of this legislation or claims for injuries sustained prior to enactment. The harm from Riegel, unless Congress acts, cannot be more real. Take Riegel itself. In 1996, Charles Riegel had an angioplasty performed on his right coronary artery. During the procedure, Mr. Reigel's surgeon used Medtronic's Evergreen Balloon Catheter. The catheter burst inside Mr. Reigel's artery, causing him severe and permanent injuries and disabilities. Under our system of law, when someone is injured, he or she can normally seek redress from the entity that caused him or her harm. Yet, because of the Court's decision, Mr. Riegel and his wife will receive no compensation for the defective design and inadequate warning. It is not just Mr. Riegel. In 2002, Gary Despain was implanted with a defective hearing aid Soundtec manufactured. While working as a welder, he suffered damage to his right ear, apparently as a result of interference between a magnet in his hearing device and some electronic welding equipment being used in the plant. The device caused severe ringing in his ear, but the labeling for the device failed to warn of this potential risk. Mr. Despain had to have the device surgically removed and he remains unemployed and disabled as a result of the device. Nevertheless, two weeks after the Court's Riegel decision, Mr. Despain's lawsuit against Soundtec was dismissed and Mr. Despain has no ability to seek remedies for his injuries. The result of Riegel, therefore, is that in the event the FDA does an inadequate job of inspecting and assuring the safety of medical devices--and because tort actions are now precluded--then consumers are left at extreme risk. While FDA approval of medical devices, moreover, is important, it cannot be the sole protection for consumers. FDA approval is simply inadequate to replace the long-standing safety incentives and consumer protections that state tort law provides. As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, which has oversight over FDA, I have worked hard to ensure that the FDA performs its job. No matter how effective the FDA is, however, the FDA simply cannot guarantee that no defective, dangerous and deadly medical device will reach consumers. As the former Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health acknowledged, the FDA's ``system of approving devices isn't perfect, and that unexpected problems [with approved devices] do arise.'' In 1993, a House report identified a ``number of cases in which the FDA [had] approved devices that proved unsafe in use.'' The fact is, the FDA conducts the approval process with minimal resources and simply does not have adequate funds to genuinely ensure that devices are safe or to properly and effectively reevaluate approvals as new information becomes available. Further, the FDA approval process is based on partial information. A principal shortcoming is that the device's manufacturer compiles the studies and data supporting an application, and the data is often unreliable. And, the FDA does not conduct independent investigations into a device's safety. A manufacturer, moreover, is not required to submit information about development of the device, including alternative designs, manufacturing methods and labeling possibilities that the manufacturer considered, but rejected. In 1993, an FDA committee found flaws in the design, conduct and analysis of the clinical studies used to support applications that were ``sufficiently serious to impede the agency's ability to make the necessary judgments about [device] safety and effectiveness.'' It added, ``[o]ne of the main reasons [problems arise after approval] is that the data upon which we base our safety and effectiveness decisions isn't perfect.'' Likewise, in 1996, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported ``serious deficiencies . . . in the clinical data submitted as part of pre-market applications.'' FDA review, moreover, is a one-time event with no reevaluation and very little FDA oversight once a device reaches doctors and patients. In fact, even the best-designed and most reliable clinical studies by their very nature cannot duplicate all aspects and hazards of everyday use. Moreover, while manufacturers are supposed to report defects and injuries, the FDA has admitted that there is ``severe underreporting'' of defects and injuries. Given the FDA's limitations, it is crucial that an individual have a right to seek redress. When defective medical devices reach the market, whether or not approved by the FDA, patients are often injured. Those injured are often left temporarily unable to work or to enjoy normal lives, and in many cases never fully recover. State tort law provides the only relief for patients injured by defective medical devices and should not be foreclosed. Not only does access to State court mean that a person injured can receive fair compensation, but there are other advantages. Such suits aid in exposing dangers and serve as a catalyst to address their consequences. Through discovery, litigation can help uncover previously unavailable information on adverse effects of products that might not have been caught during the regulatory system. Litigants can demand documents and information on product risks that might not have been shared with the FDA. In this way, the public as a whole is alerted to dangers in medical products. Finally, providing the ability to sue when injured provides an important incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care. Additionally, threat of product liability suits creates continuing incentives for product manufacturers to improve the safety of their device, even after FDA approval. The Court fundamentally misread Congress's intent in passing the Medical Device Amendments in 1976, and Reigel represents yet another victory by big business over consumers. Those injured, however, deserve to have their day in court and are entitled to compensation when they are injured by faulty medical devices, have medical expenses to pay and lost wages, regardless of whether FDA approved a device or not. We must reverse this erroneous decision and ensure that those who have suffered serious injury at the hands of others receive justice.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch, Obama, and McCain in introducing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation will allow us to advance and fulfill the original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law 18 years ago this month. I am especially grateful to the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his partnership and leadership in helping to craft our bill here in the Senate and to Senator Kennedy for his career-long leadership in fighting for the rights of people with disabilities. Senator Kennedy has worked from the beginning to help craft this bill. This bill is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the other body by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. That bill passed by a 402-17 margin last month. I am also grateful that, from the outset, these bills have been conceived and crafted in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for all Americans with disabilities. Of course, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was also a bipartisan effort. As chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very closely with Senator Bob Dole and others on both sides of the aisle. We received invaluable support from President George Herbert Walker Bush and key members of his administration, including White House Counsel Boyden Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner. The fact is that Americans of all walks of life take enormous pride in the progress we have made since the ADA was passed 18 years ago. Nobody wants to go backward. The Americans with Disabilities Act was one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century--a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for Americans with disabilities. Thanks to that law, we have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for more than 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. And we have advanced the four goals of the ADA--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The reach--the triumph--of the ADA revolution struck home to me, some time back, when I attended a Washington convention of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with significant disabilities. They arrived in Washington on trains and airplanes built to accommodate people with mobility impairments. They came to the hotel on Metro and in regular busses, 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 was a sign language interpreter on the dais so that people with hearing disabilities could be full participants. For those of us who do not have disabilities, these many changes are all but invisible. But for individuals with disabilities, they are transforming and liberating. So are provisions in the ADA outlawing discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace, and requiring employers to provide ``reasonable accommodations.'' But despite this progress, we face a challenge. In recent years, the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, people with conditions that common sense tells us are disabilities are being told by courts that they are not in fact disabled, and are not eligible for the protections of the law. In a ruling last year, the 11th Circuit Court even concluded that a person with an intellectual disability was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. When I explain to people what the Supreme Court has done, they are shocked. Impairments that the Court says are not to be considered disabilities under the law include amputation, intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. In three rulings in 1999--Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, and Albertson's v. Kirkingburg--the Court held that corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that if a person is taking corrective measures to mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measures must be taken into account when judging whether a person is ``disabled.'' Corrective measures could include anything from visual aids to a prosthesis. The Court went on to say that the approach adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--that persons are to be evaluated in their hypothetical uncorrected state--was an impermissible interpretation of the ADA. In Murphy, the Court applied the same analysis to medication used to treat hypertension, and concluded that an employee who was fired because he had hypertension was not protected under the ADA, because medication alleviated some of his symptoms. In Kirkingburg, the Supreme Court went further and declared that mitigating measures to be included in the determination of whether someone is disabled included not only artificial aids such as devices and medications, but also subconscious measures an individual may use to compensate for his or her impairment. Kirkingburg was an individual who was blind in one eye, and the court found that he was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. Moreover, in another Supreme Court case, Toyota v. Williams 2002, the Court held that there must be a ``demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' This too, has resulted in a much more restrictive requirement than Congress intended. It has had the effect of excluding countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the law. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created a supreme absurdity: The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more likely it is for a court to find that they are no longer sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. And if these individuals are no longer protected under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable accommodation at work can be denied. Or they can be fired--without recourse. Think about it this way: Imagine that you are an individual with a disability who has a job. Due to your disability, you take some medication or maybe you use an assistive device. The use of the medication or the assistive device allows you to be qualified to do your job. It's a job that you really love. At some point, you need to request a reasonable accommodation from your employer--maybe, if you have diabetes, it is 10 minutes a day to take your insulin and check your blood levels. Or perhaps you use a prosthesis. Your employer says no, they don't want to give you an accommodation. Eventually you get fired as a result. When you go to court, your employer argues that you aren't really a person with a disability so you aren't entitled to the protections of the ADA. Then, under these Supreme Court cases, the employer prevails by convincing the court that because of the mitigating measure--the prosthesis--you can't meet the test of being ``disabled'' under the law. So what are you supposed to do in these cases? If you don't take the medication or use the assistive device, then you are not qualified to do the job. On the other hand, if you stop taking the medication, or stop using your prosthesis, you will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, but you will be unable to do your job. What would you do? This is the Catch 22 situation that, today, confronts countless people with disabilities. This is clearly not what I intended, or what Congress intended, when we passed the ADA in 1990. It boggles the mind that any court would rule that, for instance, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, is not a disability covered by the ADA. But that is where we are today. And that is why we are introducing this bill today. This Senate bill builds on the success of the House bill. However, it seeks to broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences. Our bill leaves the ADA's familiar disability definition language intact: A person with a disability is one who has a physical or mental impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more of the major life activities of the individual. It does not substitute the term ``materially restricts'' as in the House bill. Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition. This bill will overturn the basis for the reasoning in the Supreme Court decisions--the Sutton trilogy and the Toyota case--that have been so problematic for so many people with very real disabilities. This bill fixes the ``mitigating measures'' problem by clearly stating that mitigating measures--like the medication or assistive devices I talked about earlier--are not to be considered in determining whether someone is entitled to the protections of the ADA. This bill will make it easier for people with disabilities to be covered by the ADA because it effectively expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new category of major bodily functions. This latter point is important for those with immune disorders, or cancer, or kidney disease, or liver disease, because they no longer need to show what specific activity they are limited in, in order to meet the statutory definition of disability. This bill rejects the current EEOC regulation which says that ``substantially limits'' means ``significantly restricted'' as too high a standard. We indicate Congress's expectation that the regulation be rewritten in a less stringent way, and we provide the authority to do so. This bill revives the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of disability, and makes it easier for those with physical or mental impairments to be able to seek relief if they have been subjected to an adverse action because of their disability. This bill has a broad construction provision which instructs the courts and the agencies that the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly, to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA. Mr. President, 18 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, with the introduction of this bill, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Let me say, again, that I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with which we are approaching this legislation. We have an opportunity to come together and make an important difference for millions of Americans with disabilities. This bill also enjoys strong support out in the country. It is supported by most national disability organizations, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Human Resources Policy Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this bill, and to advance and fulfill the original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Medical Device Safety Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court's erroneous decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. There, the Court misread a statute designed to protect consumers by giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve medical devices as preempting state tort claims when a medical device causes harm. Riegel prevents consumers from receiving fair compensation for injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and lost wages, and it must be reversed. Congressional action should be unnecessary. When Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments, or MDA, in 1976, it did so ``[t]o provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.'' In other words, Congress passed the MDA precisely to protect consumers from dangerous medical devices. Toward that end, Congress gave the FDA the authority to approve, prior to a product entering the market, certain medical devices. For over 30 years the MDA has been in effect, and over that period FDA regulation and tort liability have complemented each other in protecting consumers. Given the MDA's purpose, and the fact it has operated successfully for 30 years, I was disheartened to find the Court twist the meaning of the statute to strip from consumers all remedies when a medical device fails. In contorted logic, the Court found that the FDA's requirements in approving a medical device preempted state laws designed to ensure that manufacturers marketed safe devices. In other words, the Court believes that a company's responsibility to its patients ends when it receives FDA approval. I strenuously disagree. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Congress intended that under the MDA, consumers would lose their only avenue for receiving compensation for injuries caused by negligent or inadequately labeled devices. Not a single member or committee report articulated the view that the statute would preempt state tort law. Nevertheless, because of the Court's decision, it is imperative that Congress act to ensure that those harmed by flawed medical devices can seek compensation. The bill introduced today addresses the Court's action by explicitly stating that actions for damages under state law are preserved. Specifically, it amends section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that the section shall not be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State. And, the bill applies retroactively to the date of the enactment of the MDA, consistent with Congress's intent when it passed that act over 30 years ago. Practically, that means that it applies to cases pending on the date of enactment of this legislation or claims for injuries sustained prior to enactment. The harm from Riegel, unless Congress acts, cannot be more real. Take Riegel itself. In 1996, Charles Riegel had an angioplasty performed on his right coronary artery. During the procedure, Mr. Reigel's surgeon used Medtronic's Evergreen Balloon Catheter. The catheter burst inside Mr. Reigel's artery, causing him severe and permanent injuries and disabilities. Under our system of law, when someone is injured, he or she can normally seek redress from the entity that caused him or her harm. Yet, because of the Court's decision, Mr. Riegel and his wife will receive no compensation for the defective design and inadequate warning. It is not just Mr. Riegel. In 2002, Gary Despain was implanted with a defective hearing aid Soundtec manufactured. While working as a welder, he suffered damage to his right ear, apparently as a result of interference between a magnet in his hearing device and some electronic welding equipment being used in the plant. The device caused severe ringing in his ear, but the labeling for the device failed to warn of this potential risk. Mr. Despain had to have the device surgically removed and he remains unemployed and disabled as a result of the device. Nevertheless, two weeks after the Court's Riegel decision, Mr. Despain's lawsuit against Soundtec was dismissed and Mr. Despain has no ability to seek remedies for his injuries. The result of Riegel, therefore, is that in the event the FDA does an inadequate job of inspecting and assuring the safety of medical devices--and because tort actions are now precluded--then consumers are left at extreme risk. While FDA approval of medical devices, moreover, is important, it cannot be the sole protection for consumers. FDA approval is simply inadequate to replace the long-standing safety incentives and consumer protections that state tort law provides. As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, which has oversight over FDA, I have worked hard to ensure that the FDA performs its job. No matter how effective the FDA is, however, the FDA simply cannot guarantee that no defective, dangerous and deadly medical device will reach consumers. As the former Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health acknowledged, the FDA's ``system of approving devices isn't perfect, and that unexpected problems [with approved devices] do arise.'' In 1993, a House report identified a ``number of cases in which the FDA [had] approved devices that proved unsafe in use.'' The fact is, the FDA conducts the approval process with minimal resources and simply does not have adequate funds to genuinely ensure that devices are safe or to properly and effectively reevaluate approvals as new information becomes available. Further, the FDA approval process is based on partial information. A principal shortcoming is that the device's manufacturer compiles the studies and data supporting an application, and the data is often unreliable. And, the FDA does not conduct independent investigations into a device's safety. A manufacturer, moreover, is not required to submit information about development of the device, including alternative designs, manufacturing methods and labeling possibilities that the manufacturer considered, but rejected. In 1993, an FDA committee found flaws in the design, conduct and analysis of the clinical studies used to support applications that were ``sufficiently serious to impede the agency's ability to make the necessary judgments about [device] safety and effectiveness.'' It added, ``[o]ne of the main reasons [problems arise after approval] is that the data upon which we base our safety and effectiveness decisions isn't perfect.'' Likewise, in 1996, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported ``serious deficiencies . . . in the clinical data submitted as part of pre-market applications.'' FDA review, moreover, is a one-time event with no reevaluation and very little FDA oversight once a device reaches doctors and patients. In fact, even the best-designed and most reliable clinical studies by their very nature cannot duplicate all aspects and hazards of everyday use. Moreover, while manufacturers are supposed to report defects and injuries, the FDA has admitted that there is ``severe underreporting'' of defects and injuries. Given the FDA's limitations, it is crucial that an individual have a right to seek redress. When defective medical devices reach the market, whether or not approved by the FDA, patients are often injured. Those injured are often left temporarily unable to work or to enjoy normal lives, and in many cases never fully recover. State tort law provides the only relief for patients injured by defective medical devices and should not be foreclosed. Not only does access to State court mean that a person injured can receive fair compensation, but there are other advantages. Such suits aid in exposing dangers and serve as a catalyst to address their consequences. Through discovery, litigation can help uncover previously unavailable information on adverse effects of products that might not have been caught during the regulatory system. Litigants can demand documents and information on product risks that might not have been shared with the FDA. In this way, the public as a whole is alerted to dangers in medical products. Finally, providing the ability to sue when injured provides an important incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care. Additionally, threat of product liability suits creates continuing incentives for product manufacturers to improve the safety of their device, even after FDA approval. The Court fundamentally misread Congress's intent in passing the Medical Device Amendments in 1976, and Reigel represents yet another victory by big business over consumers. Those injured, however, deserve to have their day in court and are entitled to compensation when they are injured by faulty medical devices, have medical expenses to pay and lost wages, regardless of whether FDA approved a device or not. We must reverse this erroneous decision and ensure that those who have suffered serious injury at the hands of others receive justice.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch, Obama, and McCain in introducing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation will allow us to advance and fulfill the original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law 18 years ago this month. I am especially grateful to the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his partnership and leadership in helping to craft our bill here in the Senate and to Senator Kennedy for his career-long leadership in fighting for the rights of people with disabilities. Senator Kennedy has worked from the beginning to help craft this bill. This bill is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the other body by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. That bill passed by a 402-17 margin last month. I am also grateful that, from the outset, these bills have been conceived and crafted in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for all Americans with disabilities. Of course, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was also a bipartisan effort. As chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very closely with Senator Bob Dole and others on both sides of the aisle. We received invaluable support from President George Herbert Walker Bush and key members of his administration, including White House Counsel Boyden Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner. The fact is that Americans of all walks of life take enormous pride in the progress we have made since the ADA was passed 18 years ago. Nobody wants to go backward. The Americans with Disabilities Act was one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century--a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for Americans with disabilities. Thanks to that law, we have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for more than 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. And we have advanced the four goals of the ADA--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The reach--the triumph--of the ADA revolution struck home to me, some time back, when I attended a Washington convention of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with significant disabilities. They arrived in Washington on trains and airplanes built to accommodate people with mobility impairments. They came to the hotel on Metro and in regular busses, 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 was a sign language interpreter on the dais so that people with hearing disabilities could be full participants. For those of us who do not have disabilities, these many changes are all but invisible. But for individuals with disabilities, they are transforming and liberating. So are provisions in the ADA outlawing discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace, and requiring employers to provide ``reasonable accommodations.'' But despite this progress, we face a challenge. In recent years, the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual with a disability.'' As a consequence, people with conditions that common sense tells us are disabilities are being told by courts that they are not in fact disabled, and are not eligible for the protections of the law. In a ruling last year, the 11th Circuit Court even concluded that a person with an intellectual disability was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. When I explain to people what the Supreme Court has done, they are shocked. Impairments that the Court says are not to be considered disabilities under the law include amputation, intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. In three rulings in 1999--Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, and Albertson's v. Kirkingburg--the Court held that corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that if a person is taking corrective measures to mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measures must be taken into account when judging whether a person is ``disabled.'' Corrective measures could include anything from visual aids to a prosthesis. The Court went on to say that the approach adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--that persons are to be evaluated in their hypothetical uncorrected state--was an impermissible interpretation of the ADA. In Murphy, the Court applied the same analysis to medication used to treat hypertension, and concluded that an employee who was fired because he had hypertension was not protected under the ADA, because medication alleviated some of his symptoms. In Kirkingburg, the Supreme Court went further and declared that mitigating measures to be included in the determination of whether someone is disabled included not only artificial aids such as devices and medications, but also subconscious measures an individual may use to compensate for his or her impairment. Kirkingburg was an individual who was blind in one eye, and the court found that he was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. Moreover, in another Supreme Court case, Toyota v. Williams 2002, the Court held that there must be a ``demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' This too, has resulted in a much more restrictive requirement than Congress intended. It has had the effect of excluding countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the law. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created a supreme absurdity: The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more likely it is for a court to find that they are no longer sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. And if these individuals are no longer protected under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable accommodation at work can be denied. Or they can be fired--without recourse. Think about it this way: Imagine that you are an individual with a disability who has a job. Due to your disability, you take some medication or maybe you use an assistive device. The use of the medication or the assistive device allows you to be qualified to do your job. It's a job that you really love. At some point, you need to request a reasonable accommodation from your employer--maybe, if you have diabetes, it is 10 minutes a day to take your insulin and check your blood levels. Or perhaps you use a prosthesis. Your employer says no, they don't want to give you an accommodation. Eventually you get fired as a result. When you go to court, your employer argues that you aren't really a person with a disability so you aren't entitled to the protections of the ADA. Then, under these Supreme Court cases, the employer prevails by convincing the court that because of the mitigating measure--the prosthesis--you can't meet the test of being ``disabled'' under the law. So what are you supposed to do in these cases? If you don't take the medication or use the assistive device, then you are not qualified to do the job. On the other hand, if you stop taking the medication, or stop using your prosthesis, you will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, but you will be unable to do your job. What would you do? This is the Catch 22 situation that, today, confronts countless people with disabilities. This is clearly not what I intended, or what Congress intended, when we passed the ADA in 1990. It boggles the mind that any court would rule that, for instance, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, is not a disability covered by the ADA. But that is where we are today. And that is why we are introducing this bill today. This Senate bill builds on the success of the House bill. However, it seeks to broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences. Our bill leaves the ADA's familiar disability definition language intact: A person with a disability is one who has a physical or mental impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more of the major life activities of the individual. It does not substitute the term ``materially restricts'' as in the House bill. Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition. This bill will overturn the basis for the reasoning in the Supreme Court decisions--the Sutton trilogy and the Toyota case--that have been so problematic for so many people with very real disabilities. This bill fixes the ``mitigating measures'' problem by clearly stating that mitigating measures--like the medication or assistive devices I talked about earlier--are not to be considered in determining whether someone is entitled to the protections of the ADA. This bill will make it easier for people with disabilities to be covered by the ADA because it effectively expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new category of major bodily functions. This latter point is important for those with immune disorders, or cancer, or kidney disease, or liver disease, because they no longer need to show what specific activity they are limited in, in order to meet the statutory definition of disability. This bill rejects the current EEOC regulation which says that ``substantially limits'' means ``significantly restricted'' as too high a standard. We indicate Congress's expectation that the regulation be rewritten in a less stringent way, and we provide the authority to do so. This bill revives the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of disability, and makes it easier for those with physical or mental impairments to be able to seek relief if they have been subjected to an adverse action because of their disability. This bill has a broad construction provision which instructs the courts and the agencies that the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly, to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA. Mr. President, 18 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, with the introduction of this bill, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Let me say, again, that I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with which we are approaching this legislation. We have an opportunity to come together and make an important difference for millions of Americans with disabilities. This bill also enjoys strong support out in the country. It is supported by most national disability organizations, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Human Resources Policy Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this bill, and to advance and fulfill the original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at the end of August, Jan Reinicke will retire after 10 years of distinguished service as executive director of the Iowa State Education Association. Jan began her career in the classroom, serving as a speech and English teacher in the Iowa towns of Cincinnati, Coon Rapids, and Fort Dodge, earning the love of her students. Nearly four decades later, she concludes her career as one of the most respected educator-leaders in my State of Iowa. Jan previously served as a lobbyist on the ISEA staff from 1980 to 1994, and as associate executive director from 1995 to 1998. At every stage, the key to her success has been that her roots have remained firmly planted in the classroom, and her passion has been to enhance the professionalism and stature of the teaching profession. I have always loved what Lee Iacocca said about teachers. ``In a completely rational society,'' he said, ``the best of us would be teachers, and the rest would have to settle for something less.'' Fortunately, in Iowa, so many of our best--individuals of intelligence and talent like Jan Reinicke--do go into teaching. But, unfortunately, these idealistic and dedicated professionals do not always receive the support and compensation that they deserve. That is why Jan has dedicated herself to lifting up the teaching profession in my state. Thanks to her leadership and advocacy, the Iowa Legislature passed two major salary improvements for Iowa teachers. In addition, Jan is a passionate believer that teachers and other educators should take charge of their own profession. To that end, she has devoted herself to strengthening the Iowa State Education Association both as a union and as a professional association, more effectively advocating for teachers and other educators. Her vision led to the creation of teacher quality committees, giving teachers a larger voice in professional development and in determining the course of their schools. A wise person once said, ``Those who dare to teach must never cease to learn.'' Jan agrees wholeheartedly. This is why she led the charge to establish ISEA's Professional Development Academy, which provides relicensing courses for teachers, as well as the opportunity to earn graduate credit. Under Jan's leadership, the association also created the Faculty Quality Plan to ensure that every student has access to quality teachers and a rigorous curriculum. As a teacher, as an education lobbyist, and as the top executive at ISEA, Jan Reinicke's bottom line has always been the same: ensuring a quality teacher in every classroom, and a quality public education for every child. There is an old saying that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. Jan Reinicke has always given generously to those around her as a teacher, mentor, and leader. She leaves a living legacy in terms of an enhanced teaching profession in Iowa and a strong, respected Iowa State Education Association. I know that Jan Reinicke has many wonderful plans for retirement, and that she intends to give of herself generously as a volunteer. I join her colleagues and friends across Iowa in thanking her for a job superbly done, and in wishing her a long and happy retirement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Special Olympics, an organization that has done an extraordinary job of improving the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This remarkable organization was born in Eunice Kennedy Shriver's backyard, where she used to host a day camp for children with intellectual disabilities. Under her founding leadership--and for the last decade, under the leadership of her son, Tim Shriver--the Special Olympics has grown into a truly amazing enterprise, serving some 2.5 million people in more than 180 countries. It gives individuals with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to improve their health, well-being, social skills, and other skills through competitive sports--and the opportunity to have fun, just like everyone else. I have been a long-time advocate for people with disabilities. But it was not until the 1980s, when Eunice Kennedy Shriver came to see me and asked me to get involved as an advocate for individuals with intellectual disabilities, that I learned about the unique challenges faced by individuals with intellectual disabilities in our society. Of course, when Eunice Kennedy Shriver asked, I couldn't say no. She invited me to a Special Olympics competition here in Washington, and I immediately became a fan. It was extraordinary to see the athletes' talents, enthusiasm, and courage. Over the years, thanks largely to Special Olympics, I have developed a better appreciation of the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. They have health problems that many physicians do not know how to address. For example, by and large, individuals with intellectual disabilities have little opportunity for exercise and other physical activity. Too often, they are relegated to the fringes of our society. The brilliance of the Special Olympics is that it uses sports to help integrate people with intellectual disabilities into our broader society. Special Olympics provides a kind of ideal world for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The accent is on abilities, not disabilities. Athletes have the opportunity to compete and achieve on a level playing field. Special Olympics gives its athletes, like Kyler Prunty, one of my constituents from Marshalltown, IA, the opportunity to compete in swimming and other sports, as all children and young adults want the opportunity to do. Kyler knows that his success is determined by his own hard work, talent, determination, and courage. Special Olympics helps people overcome their fear and ignorance of individuals with intellectual disabilities. It transforms athletes by empowering them as competitors and leaders. It transforms communities by changing attitudes about people with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics includes a number of associated programs. The Unified Sports program provides inclusive sports experiences with individuals with and without intellectual disabilities playing together on the same team. Special Olympics also improves the lives of individuals with disabilities by looking at health issues. I am a proud supporter of the Healthy Athletes program, which allows athletes to receive a variety of important health screenings and services in conjunction with local, State/Provincial, National, and World Games. Special Olympics has come a long way since it began 40 years ago. When Special Olympics held its first event in Illinois, my home State of Iowa sent fewer than 100 athletes to the games. Today, more than 13,000 Special Olympics Athletes, and 2,000 certified coaches, from all 99 Iowa counties in Iowa, participate in Special Olympics programs. I am proud that, in 2006, the first-ever Special Olympics USA National Games were held in Ames, IA. In conjunction with those games, I held a field hearing of my Senate Appropriations Subcommittee focusing on the status of people with intellectual disabilities in the U.S. That hearing taught us a great deal about the health and education needs of individuals with intellectual disabilities. As a result of the hearing, I introduced S. 1050, the Health and Wellness for Individuals with Disabilities Act. This bill would promote the training of medical and dental professionals to care for individuals with intellectual disabilities. In addition, it would create model wellness programs, and standards for accessibility of medical equipment to further level the playing field for the care of Special Olympics athletes and other individuals with disabilities. Special Olympics and its emphasis on inclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities through athletics is now a worldwide movement. It shows what can be achieved when one individual, in the person of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, pursues a cause with passion. Her vision is making a difference in the fabric of our society, where individuals with intellectual disabilities can now participate in sports competitions in Iowa, across the country, and around the world. I salute the Special Olympics for a brilliant 40 years of service, and I wish the organization even greater success in the decades ahead.