Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Am I correct in understanding that Senator Akaka was a principal in an elementary school.

Mr. KENNEDY. In an elementary school.

Mr. KENNEDY. How many years were you a principal in an elementary school?

Mr. KENNEDY. Good. Well, I thank the Senator. Senator Akaka brings many different qualities to his service, but the fact that he was a principal in an elementary school reflects that he understands the importance of education, and he knows this community. It gives us additional information to understand his strong commitment in this area of opportunity for Pacific Islanders and for Native Hawaiians. I think, Mr. President, we will hold up, but I expect we will pass this amendment in a short while. So I think at this time we are just going to hold, if we could. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from North Carolina for offering this amendment. I had the opportunity to travel to North Carolina and to visit with their education department about their innovative and creative ways of trying to bring in highly qualified teachers in a lot of underserved areas. They have done a very good job. This amendment doesn't surprise me. It is extremely worthwhile and reminds us of what the current situation is. If you have math students in high-poverty schools, they are more likely to be taught by out-of- field teachers. That means that over 33 percent of the math classes in high-poverty schools are being taught by a teacher without a degree in their field compared to less than 18 percent in low-poverty schools. So as we have discussed during this entire debate, both last week and this week, this is a good example of our efforts to reduce the inequities in education, particularly when we are talking about the needs of developing skills in math, in science, engineering, and technology. This is a pretty good indication, the fact that if children are going to high-poverty schools, this is the chance they have to learn from a well-qualified teacher. It isn't always the case, but these statistics demonstrate the point the amendment is trying to make. This is in science. If you take science students in high-poverty schools, they are more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers. It is 56 percent in the high-poverty area, and only 22 percent in the low- poverty areas. This is repeated in other subjects as well. Among other things, what the amendment is trying to do is hold institutions of higher education accountable for the quality and progress of teacher preparation and alternative certification programs. We have serious need for math and science teachers, especially in low- income and high-need schools. We ought to be encouraging our teaching institutions to help produce those teachers. That is really a very substantial part of what this amendment does. It helps high-need schools recruit and retain high-quality teachers so we give encouragement to schools to produce these teachers, and then help the high-needs schools to recruit and retain the highly qualified teachers and also help promote innovative models such as induction and teaching residency programs. We have seen that some of these programs have been enormously successful in retaining teachers in high-poverty areas. These programs also encourage more accountability in teacher preparation. That is very consistent with what we are trying to do in this legislation. Senator Burr has spoken of this issue. The Senator from Wyoming, you will remember, spoke about this during our discussions in the committee. We indicated a desire to work with him. This legislation is right on target with what we are attempting to do, recognizing what I said previously, and that is the key to education is the well-trained teacher. This is going to be helpful to make sure we are going to have a well-trained teacher in those areas of shortage. Clearly, math, science and engineering are very important, critical areas. As are teaching students with disabilities and English language learners. The amendment will help make this stronger legislation as a result of its acceptance. I am more than glad to urge our colleagues to accept it. I will follow the lead of the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. KENNEDY. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio, I understand, is on his way. We expect him shortly. He has an important amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that might be wrong. I thought that was the point of the Byrd amendment. In your language you have on page 2, ``any person or entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency of the Federal Government, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action.'' I am trying to understand this. Can a government affairs person at a university--I am a Member of Congress--talk to me about support for the NIH and NIH funding? I hear what the Senator wants to do. I would be interested in where you get the $127 million. I will accept what the Senator says on this. I had thought, when we passed the Byrd amendment, Senator Byrd spoke very eloquently about what I think the Senator is dealing with, and that is lobbyists getting part of the action when they have the earmark. I thought that is the effect. It goes further than that, but I am concerned about--and I have said this in my questions--whether you have a person representing a university or a government affairs person calling a Member of Congress about a lot of the matters that we are considering in this legislation, whether it is a student loan program or the NIH or whether it is the regulations that are guiding some of the education programs, the programs dealing with disabled student--let me ask you, how would this affect a university? If there was a conference by one of the agencies-- the Department of Education--and they were having a conference on the subject of higher education, can the university send any individuals there to express their views on education policies? Say they want to go down there and see more laboratories built because they want additional research, and they speak to the Department of Education about those kinds of items.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator's responses are helpful. I don't know whether the Senator is familiar with the Byrd amendment. If it is not interfering with colleges or universities or institutions dealing with a wide range of educational issues or some of the fine schools that offer criminology wanting to call the Justice Department to try to get grants to deal with the problems of violence in the communities. But the Senator has given assurance that is not the area he is trying to get at. It is basically the lobbyists. I don't know whether the Senator is familiar with title I of the Byrd amendment, which prohibits, as I understand it, a great deal of what the Senator spoke about with great eloquence in the earlier program.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow we will celebrate the first increase in the minimum wage in 10 years--in 10 years. That will be the first increase in the minimum wage. It will be increased to $5.85 an hour, followed by an additional 70 cents one year later, and an additional 70 cents one year after that. This will mean new hope and opportunity for 13 million men and women. Primarily women, because almost 60 percent of minimum wage workers are women. It will benefit some 6.4 million children because more than half of the women who will benefit from the increase have children. So it will benefit the children. This means hope is on the way. It has been a long time, Mr. President. We have heard those who say: Well, the increase in the minimum wage is going to cost jobs, and it will work a hardship on these people. Of course, that is what they have said on every increase there has been. This is the 10th increase in the minimum wage, and they have been wrong each and every time. Currently, the second largest economy in Western Europe is Great Britain--they are paying $10.97 as a minimum wage. They have lifted almost a million children out of poverty. At the present time, Ireland also has one of the strongest economies in Western Europe and their minimum wage is $11.25 an hour, and they have the strongest economy in all of Western Europe. They have reduced child poverty by 40 percent, and their economy is strong. So $5.85 in this great country at this time is just a statement that many of us believe that work should pay, and that people who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not live in poverty. So tomorrow will be an important day, Mr. President, and it is appropriate that the Senate be reminded of it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post included details from a memo by our Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, in which he makes a strong case that we need to do more to make it possible for Iraqis employed by our government to come to the United States. Ambasador Crocker emphasizes the growing danger facing these Iraqis, who as he states ``work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping.'' According to the article, Ambassador Crocker has called for establishment of an immigrant visa program for these Iraqi employees. In fact, Senators Smith, Biden, Hagel, Lieberman, Leahy, Levin, and I have introduced legislation which establishes a program to do precisely what Ambassador Crocker calls for. Our legislation establishes an immigrant visa program for Iraqis who have worked for or directly with the United States government for at least 1 year. Our Government now provides such special immigrant visas but only for Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Our bill expands it to include Iraqis in other professions who have been employed by us or who have worked directly with us. In addition, our legislation creates additional options for Iraqis who are under threat because of their close association with the United States to apply to our refugee resettlement program. The Senate is obviously divided on the best overall policy to pursue on the war. I thought it was a mistake from the beginning. That is no secret. Some of our colleagues are convinced that continuing the use of military force in Iraq is necessary to protect our national security. But our divisions on that issue should not obscure the fact that all of us on both sides of the aisle agree that America owes an immense debt of gratitude to these Iraqis, and we have a special responsibility to help them. They have supported our effort, saved American lives, and are clearly at great risk because of it. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, recognized this obligation and called for action in a June 12 article in ``The Hill.'' He recalled a Vietnamese friend who did not make it out of Vietnam when the U.S. left, and said, ``There are in Iraq today untold numbers of people like my Vietnamese friend who rushed to our aid when we arrived and have worked with us since. If we abandon them, they may not be so lucky.'' Similarly, in a June 24 op-ed in the Washington Post, Julia Taft called for swift action to assist Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their work with our government. Ms. Taft served as director of the Interagency Task Force for Indochinese Refugee Resettlement in the Ford Administration and was later Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration. She wrote about an Iraqi couple working for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad who had been kidnapped and executed. She said: They are among the most recent of thousands of cases in which Iraqis affiliated with the United States have been forced into hiding, tortured or, often, killed . . . I found myself thinking of this husband and wife last week . . . and struggling with a terrible contradiction. The United States is the world's most generous contributor to refugee relief, and we have always taken the lead on resettling refugees. Yet our country has done the bare minimum to help these Iraqis facing death and exile. In her call for action, Taft said, ``The administration and Congress cannot waste any more time. Their lack of political will has cost too many people their lives. . . .'' In a July 19 op-ed in USA Today, Michael Medved, a conservative Republican who supports the ongoing war effort, and Lanny J. Davis, a liberal Democrat who supports the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called for swift and bold action to help Iraqi refugees. They wrote: One issue should bring together all factions of the ongoing debate, and that is America's moral obligation to open our doors--immediately--to Iraqis who face danger and death because of their assistance to our forces. They specifically called for action on our legislation, saying: Last month, a bipartisan group of senators, including Kennedy, who is anti-war, and Lieberman, who supports the war, introduced legislation that would provide special refugee status for Iraqis who are in danger because of their association with the United States or its contractors. This legislation, or something like it, needs strong support from the administration as well as from citizens across ideological and partisan lines. . . . days, even hours, could mean the difference between life and death for people who did nothing wrong other than help Americans. Many Iraqis have been working with our Armed Forces, our diplomatic mission, and our reconstruction teams in Iraq and have performed valiantly, and their lives are at risk. Many have lost their lives and many more have lost their homes, their property, and their livelihood. For some, it will be too dangerous to ever return home. America has a special obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bulls-eye on their back because of their association with our Government. Our bipartisan legislation will establish the kind of process that Ambassador Crocker, David Keene, Julia Taft, Roy Medved, Lanny Davis, and many others have called for to help these Iraqis who have sacrificed so much for the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and other articles I have mentioned be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation, S. 1651, to keep the faith with the many brave Iraqis whose lives are in great danger because they have the courage to work with the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act today, and I am pleased to have my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, joining me in this effort. This important bill will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. The widespread insistence on mandatory overtime across the country means that over-worked nurses are often forced to provide care when they are too tired to perform their jobs. The result is unnecessary risk for their patients and for the nurses themselves. A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses who work shifts of 12\1/2\ hours or more are three times more likely to commit errors than nurses who work a standard shift of 8\1/2\ hours or less. A study by researchers at Columbia University Medical Center and RAND Corporation found that when nurses work too much overtime, their patients are more likely to suffer hospital-related infections. These studies, and many more like them, compellingly illustrate the critical threat to patient safety when nurses are overworked. The grueling conditions in which nurses are obliged to work jeopardizes the future of this essential profession. We face a critical shortage of nurses. The American Hospital Association reports that hospitals needed 118,000 more RNs to fill immediate vacancies in December 2005. This is an 8.5 percent vacancy rate, and it is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years, undermining their ability to provide emergency care. In addition, nearly half a million trained nurses are not currently working in the nursing profession, even though they are desperately needed. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime are major factors in the nursing shortage. As a 2004 report by the CDC concluded, poor working conditions are contributing to difficulties with retention and recruitment in nursing. Nurses are not treated with the respect they deserve in the workplace, and many caring nurses refuse to work in an environment in which they know they are putting their patients at risk. Our Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act deals with these critical problems. By restricting mandatory overtime for nurses, the act helps ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. By improving the quality of life of nurses, the act encourages more dedicated workers to enter nursing and to make it their lifetime career. This legislation is obviously needed to protect public safety. Federal safety standards already limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals. We need to guarantee the same safe working conditions for nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. Some hospitals have already taken action. In recent years, after negotiations with their nurses, Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital in Massachusetts have agreed to limit mandatory overtime. Mr. President, 11 States have adopted laws or regulations to end forced overtime. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors and improve patient outcomes. But it is also a matter of basic fairness and respect. Nurses perform one of the most difficult and important jobs in our society. They care about their patients and want to provide the best possible treatment. They cannot do their job when they're exhausted and overworked. Nurses, and the patients they care for, deserve better. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act respects the dignity of hardworking nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act today, and I am pleased to have my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, joining me in this effort. This important bill will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. The widespread insistence on mandatory overtime across the country means that over-worked nurses are often forced to provide care when they are too tired to perform their jobs. The result is unnecessary risk for their patients and for the nurses themselves. A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses who work shifts of 12\1/2\ hours or more are three times more likely to commit errors than nurses who work a standard shift of 8\1/2\ hours or less. A study by researchers at Columbia University Medical Center and RAND Corporation found that when nurses work too much overtime, their patients are more likely to suffer hospital-related infections. These studies, and many more like them, compellingly illustrate the critical threat to patient safety when nurses are overworked. The grueling conditions in which nurses are obliged to work jeopardizes the future of this essential profession. We face a critical shortage of nurses. The American Hospital Association reports that hospitals needed 118,000 more RNs to fill immediate vacancies in December 2005. This is an 8.5 percent vacancy rate, and it is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years, undermining their ability to provide emergency care. In addition, nearly half a million trained nurses are not currently working in the nursing profession, even though they are desperately needed. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime are major factors in the nursing shortage. As a 2004 report by the CDC concluded, poor working conditions are contributing to difficulties with retention and recruitment in nursing. Nurses are not treated with the respect they deserve in the workplace, and many caring nurses refuse to work in an environment in which they know they are putting their patients at risk. Our Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act deals with these critical problems. By restricting mandatory overtime for nurses, the act helps ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. By improving the quality of life of nurses, the act encourages more dedicated workers to enter nursing and to make it their lifetime career. This legislation is obviously needed to protect public safety. Federal safety standards already limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals. We need to guarantee the same safe working conditions for nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. Some hospitals have already taken action. In recent years, after negotiations with their nurses, Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital in Massachusetts have agreed to limit mandatory overtime. Mr. President, 11 States have adopted laws or regulations to end forced overtime. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors and improve patient outcomes. But it is also a matter of basic fairness and respect. Nurses perform one of the most difficult and important jobs in our society. They care about their patients and want to provide the best possible treatment. They cannot do their job when they're exhausted and overworked. Nurses, and the patients they care for, deserve better. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act respects the dignity of hardworking nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join my colleagues in introducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act to correct the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, which undermined basic protection for workers against pay discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision also undermines pay discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our bill would restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed these important laws that workers must have a reasonable time to file a pay discrimination claim after they become victims of discriminatory compensation. No American should be denied equal pay for equal work. Employees' ability to provide for their children, save for retirement, and enjoy the benefit of their labor should not be limited by discrimination. The Court's decision undermined these bedrock principles by imposing unrealistically short time limits on such claims. The jury in this case found that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter by downgrading her evaluations because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. For over a decade, the company used these discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than male workers who held the same position and performed the same duties. Supervisors at the plant where she worked were openly biased against women. One told her that ``the plant did not need women,'' and that they ``caused problems.'' Ms. Ledbetter's pay fell to 15 to 40 percent behind her male counterparts. Finally, after years, she realized what was happening and filed suit for the back pay she had been unfairly denied. The jury found that the only reason Ms. Ledbetter was paid less was because she was a woman, and she was awarded full damages to correct this basic injustice. The Supreme Court ruled against her, holding that she filed her lawsuit far too long after Goodyear first began to pay her less than her male colleagues. Never mind that she had no way of knowing at first that male workers were being paid more. Never mind that the company discriminated against her for decades, and that the discrimination continued with each new paycheck she received. The Supreme Court's ruling defies both Congress's intent and common sense. Pay discrimination is not like other types of discrimination, because employees generally don't know what their colleagues earn, and such information is difficult to obtain. Pay discrimination is not like being told ``You're fired,'' or ``You didn't get the job,'' when workers at least know they have been denied a job benefit. With pay discrimination, the paycheck typically comes in the mail, and employees usually have no idea if they have been paid fairly. They should be able to file a complaint within a reasonable time after receiving a discriminatory paycheck, instead of having to file the complaint soon after the company first decides to shortchange them for discriminatory reasons. The decision actually creates a perverse incentive for workers to file lawsuits before they know a pay decision is based on discrimination. Workers who wait to learn the truth before filing a complaint of discrimination could be out of time. As a result, the decision will create unnecessary litigation as workers rush to beat the clock in their claims for equal pay. The Supreme Court's decision also breaks faith with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support, a vote of 93 to 5 in the Senate, and 381 to 38 in the House. The 1991 act had corrected this same problem in the context of seniority, overturning the Court's decision in a separate case. At the time, there was no need to clarify Title VII for pay discrimination claims, since the courts were interpreting Title VII correctly. Obviously, Congress now needs to act again to ensure that the law adequately protects workers against pay discrimination. The Congressional Budget Office has made clear that this bill will not create costs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Federal courts. It simply restores the status quo as Congress intended and as it existed on May 28, 2007, before the Ledbetter decision was made. It is unacceptable that some workers are unable to file a lawsuit against ongoing discrimination. Yet that is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. I hope that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, can join in correcting this obvious wrong. In recent years, the Supreme Court also has undermined other bipartisan civil rights laws in ways Congress never intended. It has limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, made it harder to protect children who are harassed in school, and eliminated peoples' right to challenge practices with a discriminatory impact on their access to public services. The Court has also made it more difficult for workers with disabilities to prove that they're entitled to the protection of the law. Congress needs to correct these problems as well. The Fair Pay Restoration Act makes sure that what happened to Lilly Ledbetter will not happen to any others. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her powerful dissent, the Court's decision is ``totally at odds with the robust protection against employment discrimination Congress intended.'' I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to restore the law as it was before the decision, so that victims of ongoing pay discrimination have a reasonable time to file their claims.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join my colleagues in introducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act to correct the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, which undermined basic protection for workers against pay discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision also undermines pay discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our bill would restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed these important laws that workers must have a reasonable time to file a pay discrimination claim after they become victims of discriminatory compensation. No American should be denied equal pay for equal work. Employees' ability to provide for their children, save for retirement, and enjoy the benefit of their labor should not be limited by discrimination. The Court's decision undermined these bedrock principles by imposing unrealistically short time limits on such claims. The jury in this case found that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter by downgrading her evaluations because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. For over a decade, the company used these discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than male workers who held the same position and performed the same duties. Supervisors at the plant where she worked were openly biased against women. One told her that ``the plant did not need women,'' and that they ``caused problems.'' Ms. Ledbetter's pay fell to 15 to 40 percent behind her male counterparts. Finally, after years, she realized what was happening and filed suit for the back pay she had been unfairly denied. The jury found that the only reason Ms. Ledbetter was paid less was because she was a woman, and she was awarded full damages to correct this basic injustice. The Supreme Court ruled against her, holding that she filed her lawsuit far too long after Goodyear first began to pay her less than her male colleagues. Never mind that she had no way of knowing at first that male workers were being paid more. Never mind that the company discriminated against her for decades, and that the discrimination continued with each new paycheck she received. The Supreme Court's ruling defies both Congress's intent and common sense. Pay discrimination is not like other types of discrimination, because employees generally don't know what their colleagues earn, and such information is difficult to obtain. Pay discrimination is not like being told ``You're fired,'' or ``You didn't get the job,'' when workers at least know they have been denied a job benefit. With pay discrimination, the paycheck typically comes in the mail, and employees usually have no idea if they have been paid fairly. They should be able to file a complaint within a reasonable time after receiving a discriminatory paycheck, instead of having to file the complaint soon after the company first decides to shortchange them for discriminatory reasons. The decision actually creates a perverse incentive for workers to file lawsuits before they know a pay decision is based on discrimination. Workers who wait to learn the truth before filing a complaint of discrimination could be out of time. As a result, the decision will create unnecessary litigation as workers rush to beat the clock in their claims for equal pay. The Supreme Court's decision also breaks faith with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support, a vote of 93 to 5 in the Senate, and 381 to 38 in the House. The 1991 act had corrected this same problem in the context of seniority, overturning the Court's decision in a separate case. At the time, there was no need to clarify Title VII for pay discrimination claims, since the courts were interpreting Title VII correctly. Obviously, Congress now needs to act again to ensure that the law adequately protects workers against pay discrimination. The Congressional Budget Office has made clear that this bill will not create costs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Federal courts. It simply restores the status quo as Congress intended and as it existed on May 28, 2007, before the Ledbetter decision was made. It is unacceptable that some workers are unable to file a lawsuit against ongoing discrimination. Yet that is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. I hope that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, can join in correcting this obvious wrong. In recent years, the Supreme Court also has undermined other bipartisan civil rights laws in ways Congress never intended. It has limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, made it harder to protect children who are harassed in school, and eliminated peoples' right to challenge practices with a discriminatory impact on their access to public services. The Court has also made it more difficult for workers with disabilities to prove that they're entitled to the protection of the law. Congress needs to correct these problems as well. The Fair Pay Restoration Act makes sure that what happened to Lilly Ledbetter will not happen to any others. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her powerful dissent, the Court's decision is ``totally at odds with the robust protection against employment discrimination Congress intended.'' I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to restore the law as it was before the decision, so that victims of ongoing pay discrimination have a reasonable time to file their claims.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. So the Senator understands, if you go on to medical school, more often than not you are probably closer to $100,000, by and large, by the time you finish medical school. But let's take the average college graduate, someone who might have gone through community college and then gone on to finish 4 years of college. They are ending up with about $19,000 in debt. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that here in Massachusetts, a starting teacher gets paid $35,000 a year? Let's take a social worker in Tennessee. He or she earns $33,000. A public defender earns $43,000. They obviously have to borrow more because they need the additional professional training. This example here is of a public defender in Indiana. Their debt is $51,000. Now, as I heard the Senator from Maryland, and we could go on across the line in terms of some of the areas of public need in this country, but if we take a school teacher, if we take a public defender, the size of their debt and the size of their income, is there any question in the Senator's mind those individuals, with that kind of debt and that kind of salary, that virtually that kind of obligation to repay at the present time is going to effectively make it impossible for those individuals who might want to go into those professions to do so?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, let me ask the Senator something.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is certainly both understandable and expressing the reality of today. Say we are trying to attract a math teacher or a science teacher. We understand that if we are going to be competitive in the world, it is going to be in the new industries, the innovative industries. I do not know what it is in Baltimore, but I can tell you in Boston, it is difficult to get good math teachers to teach in our public school systems. It is very difficult to get good science teachers in there and good chemistry teachers to teach in there. In the sciences, it is extremely difficult, because if someone is going to have the ability to be a good teacher, understanding their course structure, they are going to have to graduate from college, and then they may even have to go on to earn an advanced degree. Now if they are still going to be paid a very modest salary, what do you think that math or science teacher is going to do? Do you think they are going to go to work in the private sector for $100,000 a year or go and teach the citizens in Baltimore or the citizens in Boston at a very modest salary? What do you think is in the best interest of our Nation in terms of its competitiveness?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think with the consent agreement we are prepared to yield back the time we still have. I want to join, first of all, in thanking my friend and colleague from Wyoming, as I did in the opening of the discussion and debate on education. This reauthorization legislation--the one we will consider on Monday--is legislation that had Senator Enzi's name on it until the change in the makeup of the Senate. We had worked on it in a bipartisan way. I think with the exception of the ethical issues, which have been developed more recently, it is by and large a reflection of a really strong bipartisan effort, as our reauthorization on the Head Start Program is as well. That is the way we worked when Senator Enzi was the chairman. We have tried to follow that pathway. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of leaders in education who work on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, going back with the Republicans with Senator Stafford and with our friend Claiborne Pell, as well as Judd Gregg when he was chairman of the committee. So we want to see this passed. Hopefully, by Tuesday sometime, we will be able to look back on these past days and see a job well done. But we still have work to do. I want to take a moment of time, though, to join in thanking the staff. Senator Enzi has said it so well. There has been tireless work and a real willingness to find common ground. These staffs have worked very closely with all of us. These issues are of prime concern to every member of our committee. Every member of our committee is involved in these education issues. We have good exchanges on that, and they have all been interested for a long period of time. But I wish to thank, certainly, on my staff Michael Myers, who heads our committee staff and does such a wonderful job, Carmel Martin, and Missy Rohrbach. Missy even managed to get married during this period of time. I don't know how she found that time. J.D. LaRock, Erin Renner, Emma Vadehra, David Johns, Liz Maher, Parker Baxter and Nick Bath. For Senator Enzi, Katherine McGuire and Ilyse Schuman and Greg Dean, Beth Buehlmann and Ann Clough, Adam Briddell and Lindsey Hunsicker. There are many others, and I will include those as we go through the evening. Mr. President, I was concluding the earlier remarks but I think many of our Members are ready to move ahead now. The other major provisions of this legislation were the loan forgiveness for those in public service for 10 years, the ceiling on loan payments so they don't exceed 15 percent of monthly income, which assist people in repaying their loans in a responsible way. It is very solid legislation. It is good legislation. As I mentioned earlier, it deserves to be passed. We know the House is ready to move forward together on this bill. They have addressed this issue in the committee and they are ready to move ahead. I think the country is ready for us to move ahead. As we have been willing and able to deal with education issues, I join in the plea of my friend and colleague from Wyoming in the hope we will not extend these amendments that have no relevance to the education of the young people in this country. They are entitled, I believe, to the kind of respect they should receive with an important piece of legislation that has been bipartisan, it has been worked through, and reflects the Nation's judgment in terms of understanding the importance young people can play and must play in our country and in our democracy, in our economy and in our national security. This legislation deserves, I believe, to have a quick and speedy passage.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator understands correctly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, there is. So there will be points of order raised on amendments where those points of order should be raised.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator because this is important legislation. There are a lot of other items which all of us are concerned about that the Senate should address. But we have had good discussions, good debate. This is very important legislation, and it reflects the best judgment of the members of our committee and I think the Senate as a whole as well. Hopefully, we can get it passed.