Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on a matter we will have an opportunity to vote on as this week goes on; and that is the Employee Free Choice Act. I think to understand this issue, we have to understand what has been happening to the middle class, the working families in this country over the period of these last 30 years and what happened to the middle class in the 20 or 30 years before that and what happened at the turn of the century as we came into the 20th century. In my own State of Massachusetts, at the turn of the century, coming into the 1900s, we had the most extraordinary and excessive exploitation of American workers. They were not just American workers, they were children. All one has to do is travel up to Lowell, MA, where we have a national park, and travel through the areas that are preserved--some of the old textile mills--and you will read, encased in many of those wonderful viewing stands, these letters of children who were 8 or 9 or 10 years old who worked 15 hours a day. They were paid very minimum salaries, and they were required to work. We had the exploitation of women in those conditions. The conditions were extraordinarily dangerous. We had the wages that were completely inadequate to provide a decent wage for people who were working long and hard. Then we saw the changes that took place in the 1940s as workers came together and demanded economic and social justice. We saw the changes that took place in the workplace in terms of fairness and equity. Interestingly, we saw the vast increase in productivity. The American economy grew stronger. The middle class were the ones who brought us out of the Great Depression, the ones who fought in World War II, the ones who put us back on track after we had 16 million Americans who served in World War II and brought us back to a strong and expanding economy, where everyone moved along together. Everyone moved along together. We made enormous progress during the 1950s and the 1960s and in the early 1970s. We made economic progress for workers and working families, and we made social progress too. We passed Medicare and Medicaid. We passed the higher education bill. We passed legislation to stop child labor. We passed a whole range of different kinds of programs to make this a more fair and a more just country with strong opposition, but I don't hear any effort to try and repeal those marks of progress we made in terms of economic and social justice. And, the courts obviously filled an enormous responsibility. So what happened during this period of time? I am putting up a chart that shows the number of abuses of workers. This part of the chart shows from 1941 to 1966. During this period of time, we had what we are talking about--majority sign-up. We had it in effect during this period of time, interestingly enough. Card checkoffs were in effect during this period of time, from 1941 all the way up to 1966 and then the National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court gradually eliminated of that protection. Then we found an increase in the various abuses we had during this period of time; that is, firing workers who were interested in trying to form a union. The refusal to accept the outcome of an election. We find a series of different kinds of abuses to make it more and more difficult for people to be able to join the unions. But what we had here is the fact that we had labor and management agreements and we had progress and economic prosperity during this period of time. This chart shows during that same period of time, where we talked about actually peak union membership, wages and productivity rise together. Look at from 1947 to 1964. We see an increase in productivity and an increase in wages and America moved along together. There was economic progress that moved along. Then, as we find the unions beginning to decline, we find that workers are falling further and further and further behind. Wages now have flattened, basically, and often, in terms of their purchasing power, have actually gone down. We see that since the loss of card check, productivity grew 206 percent more than wages. So we had the idea that workers were able to get together and represent their views, and we had the increase in productivity. Then we saw the country making very important progress. Well, how is that reflected in the Nation? This chart shows what was happening in that same period of time, from 1947 to 1973. Growing together. Here it is in 1947, 1957, 1967, up to 1973: The lowest, 20 percent; the second, 20 percent; the 20 percent in the middle; and then, fourth and fifth, virtually all the same in terms of real economic growth during the same period I just pointed out where we had maximum union activity, increasing productivity, and the Nation, the United States of America, all growing, growing, and growing together. That was going on from 1947 through 1973. I see my friend from the State of Washington. How much time--I can make this long or short. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. If we divide a half hour between us, I would then have how many minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Well, then I yield myself 5 minutes, which would be a total of 15 minutes, if that is agreeable.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would let me know when I have 1 minute. We have just seen what has happened from 1947 to 1973 through the course of the middle class. Now let's take a look at the years 1973 to 2000. We have the beginning of America growing apart. Look what is happening. The lowest, the second lowest, the middle, the fourth. Look at what is happening at the top: 20 percent, growing higher during this period of time. This was the beginning of the Reagan revolution that was taking place, extraordinary tax programs that were taking place, reflecting itself in how America is growing. Are we growing more together, or are we growing more apart? Look what has happened now in the most recent times. The lowest 20 percent, because of the rates of inflation, are actually going down. Then the second 20 percent, the middle 20 percent--and the top 1 percent is the one that was growing during this period of time. What has happened at the same time is that we see the corporate profits have now gone up 63 percent more compared to workers' wages and benefits, which have now basically stabilized. This country, the United States, grows together, works together. We are a united people. We see what has been happening as a result of the fact that unions have been effectively attacked and diminished in this country. Before I conclude, this past Sunday was Father's Day. Look at the difference between fathers and sons in 1964 and 1994. From 1964 to 1994, what we have seen is the sons did better. The middle class was expanding. The sons did better than their fathers over this period of time. There was growth. Look what is happening from 1974 to 2004: a decline of 12 percent. The son is doing poorer than the father for the first time in the history of this country--the first time in the history of this country. We know the corresponding difference. We had workers who were able to get together, and we find out there is a corresponding increase. When you diminish the unions, you diminish the power of working men and women. That happens to be the fact. What is the trade union movement asking for? All they want is what we had years ago. All they are asking for is what we had during the period from 1947 to 1966, and it worked then. Look at the wages and productivity and what happened in the United States of America. We all grew together. We all grew together. So why this emotional reaction and response from the other side: My God, the Employee Free Choice Act. This is some crazy idea that we can't possibly even think about or even tolerate. This is an idea that has been tried and tested. How few the times are in the Senate when we are trying to do something that has been tried and tested and successful. We had the measure which was effectively the card checkoff during the period when wages and productivity grew together and we had the fact that America, the United States of America grew together. That is the choice we have in the Employee Free Choice Act. Are we going to go back to this period of time when we as a country and a society grow together, or are we going to continue to grow apart? That is the heart of the question, and the Employee Free Choice Act is really the resolution and the solution. So I look forward to more time. I see my friend. I have taken time now. I am thankful that my good colleague and friend from the State of Washington wishes to address this issue. This is very basic and fundamental about our country and about the kind of America we want. I come from a State that takes pride in the fact that the Mayflower arrived on the coast off of Massachusetts, and the captain and the crew came together after 6 weeks and they signed the Mayflower Compact. And that is the compact that made Massachusetts a commonwealth. What is a commonwealth? It is a common interest in all of the families saying we are going to work together to make a better State, a better country, a better nation, a better world. That is what is at the base of this legislation and what it is all about, and I hope the Senate will give us a chance to vote in favor of it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my heart goes out this morning to the families of the nine fallen firefighters in Charleston, to my colleagues Senators Graham and DeMint, and to the people of Charleston. These fallen heroes made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens. Today we remember them and all firefighters and their families for whom courageous service is a part of their everyday lives. My home State of Massachusetts endured a similar disaster several years ago when six firefighters died in Worcester, MA. I read a poem at the funeral of those fallen heroes, and I would like to read it again now. I hope it brings some small measure of comfort to those whose hearts are aching today for their brave husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends who perished so tragically. The poem is called ``May They Not Be Forgotten.'' Brother when you weep for me, Remember that it was meant to be. Lay me down and when you leave, Remember I'll be at your sleeve. In every dark and choking hall, I'll be there as you slowly crawl. On every roof in driving snow, I'll hold your coat and you will know. In cellars hot with searing heat, At windows where a gate you meet, In closets where young children hide, You know I'll be there at your side. The house from which I now respond Is overstaffed with heroes gone. Men who answered one last bell Did the job and did it well. As firemen, we understand That death's a card dealt in our hand, A card we hope we never play, But one we hold there anyway. That card is something we ignore, As we crawl across a weakened floor. For we know that we're the only prayer For anyone that might be there. So remember, as you wipe your tears, The joy I knew throughout the years As I did the job I loved to do. I pray that thought will see you through.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, because of the war in Iraq, more than 2 million Iraqis have been internally displaced in their own country, and 2 million other Iraqis are in neighboring countries throughout the region, primarily Jordan and Syria. The humanitarian needs of the refugees and internally displaced Iraqis are immense. If their needs are not quickly and adequately met, these populations could become a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. Iraqi refugees are also a significant financial burden on countries in the region. As the Iraq Study Group concluded, if the refugee crisis ``is not addressed, Iraq and the region could be further destabilized.'' Many Iraqis who have worked in critical positions in direct support of the U.S. Government in Iraq have been killed or injured in reprisals for their support of our effort. Many more Iraqis associated with the United States have fled their country in fear of being killed or injured. Clearly, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United States, but we have a fundamental obligation to help the vast number of Iraqis displaced in Iraq and throughout the region by the war and the associated chaos, especially those who have supported America's efforts in Iraq. In April 2007, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbray said the United States ``could resettle up to 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.'' In May 2007, Under Secretary Paula Dobriansky said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the United States military and embassy.'' On June 8, Secretary Rice said ``the people that I'm most worried about in the near term are the people who've worked with us who might be subject to recrimination and reprisal. And we're trying to step up our efforts on their behalf.'' It is essential for the United States to develop a comprehensive and effective approach to meet the rapidly growing needs of Iraq's refugees and internally displaced persons, especially those who are associated with the United States. The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Smith, Biden, Hagel, Leahy, Levin, and Lieberman seeks to accomplish these goals. First, the legislation would create a special category of applicants for refugee status in Iraq. Those eligible for this program, a P-2 category for refugees of special humanitarian concern, would be the Iraqis most closely associated with the United States. Iraqis who qualify would be those, 1. who have been employed by or worked directly with the U.S. Government in Iraq; or, 2. who were employed in Iraq by a media or nongovernmental organization based in the United States or by an organization or entity that has received a grant from, or entered into a cooperative agreement or contract with, the U.S. Government; or, 3. who are spouses, children, sons, daughters, siblings and parents of those who worked for or with us; or, 4. who are members of religious or minority communities and have close family members in the U.S. Those eligible would not have to be referred to our Government by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a U.S. Embassy. All applicants, however, would need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Applicants would be required to go through recently approved extensive security screening. P-2 visas for these refugees would come out of the overall authorized admissions number for the refugee program, currently established at 70,000. That figure is determined every year by the President in close consultation with the Congress. In addition to the new P-2 category of refugee applications, the legislation would expand the current U.S. Government program which provides special immigrant visas only to Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Those eligible for the expanded special immigrant visa program are Iraqis who have been employed by or worked directly with the United States for 1 year in the aggregate since 2003, and need not have served as a translator or interpreter for the military or Department of State. Applicants for SIV visas would not need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, but they would need to meet security requirements, demonstrate that they provided faithful service to our Government, and provide a recommendation or evaluation. The Secretary of State would be required to provide applicants with protection or immediate removal from Iraq if they are in immediate danger. Five thousand of these visas would be available yearly for 5 years. Importantly, our legislation requires the Secretary of State to establish a program for processing P-2 refugees and SIV applicants in Iraq and in countries in the region. The Secretary would be required to report to the Congress within 60 days on plans to establish this program. Currently, there is no mechanism for applying for refugee status in Iraq. Those fleeing persecution and seeking refugee status must find their way to Jordan or Syria, locate an official from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and then be referred to the U.S. Government by the United Nations. Because of the growing violence and risk for those associated with the United States, we need to find a way to address this problem for Iraqis inside Iraq. Our bill does not eliminate the referral system through the United Nations, or any other existing system, but it does create an essential mechanism for direct applications in country. To oversee the implementation of this new program, the Secretary of State would be required to establish in the Embassy in Baghdad a Minister Counselor for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. This senior official would be responsible for overseeing the in-country processing of P-2 refugee and special immigrant visa applicants, and would have authority to refer them directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program. A parallel position would be created in the American embassies in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria to oversee the application process of P-2 refugees of special humanitarian concern. SIV applicants would work through regular consular channels in embassies in those countries. Recognizing that the United States can only resettle a small number of the most vulnerable refugees within our borders, the Secretary of State would be required to consult with other countries about resettlement of refugee populations, develop mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety, and provide assistance to the countries in doing so. In addition, the legislation would allow Iraqis denied asylum after March 2003 based on changed conditions to file a new petition with an immigration judge to reopen their cases. Those denied asylum, for example, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the United States is committed to building democracy in Iraq should be permitted to make their case again before a judge. After 90 days, and annually thereafter, the President would be required to submit an unclassified report to Congress with a classified annex if necessary, assessing the financial, security, personnel, considerations and resources necessary to establish the programs required in the act. After 90 days, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to submit a report to Congress outlining plans to expedite processing of Iraqi refugees, including a temporary expansion of the Refugee Corps, and plans to enhance existing systems for conducting background and security checks for Iraqis applying through the program. More than 5 years ago, Arthur Helton, perhaps this country's staunchest advocate for the rights of refugees wrote, ``Refugees matter . . . for a wide variety of reasons . . . Refugees are a product of humanity's worst instincts--the willingness of some persons to oppress others--as well as some of its best instincts--the willingness of many to assist and protect the helpless . . . In personal terms, we care about refugees because of the seed of fear that lurks in all of us that can be stated so simply: it could be me.'' A year later, Arthur Helton gave his life for his beliefs. He was killed in Baghdad in 2003 while meeting with U.N. Special Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello when a bomb destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Iraq. But his words resonate today, especially when we consider the very human cost of the war in Iraq, and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis, men, women, and children, who have fled their homes and their country to escape the violence of a nation at war with itself. 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. At a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, chilling testimony was presented about the dangers Iraqis face because of their association with America. One Iraqi, Sami, was a translator for U.S. and Coalition forces and who now lives in the United States. He said, ``I too, have been targeted for my death. My name was listed on the doors of several mosques calling for my death. Supposed friends of mine saw my name on the list and turned on me because they believed I was traitor . . . In June 2006, I learned that I had been granted special status. As a result, today I live free from the fear of persecution and threats to my life that I faced on a daily basis in Iraq. My hope is that all brave Iraqis who worked and braved so much will have the same chance as I have had to live in freedom.'' Another Iraqi, John, worked as a water service man for U.S. troops. He said, ``My wife, my six children and myself fled Iraq after terrorist groups targeted me and my family because I aided the Americans by supplying water to their service camps.'' Ken Bacon, president of Refugees International, summed it up well when he said, ``There is a large group of Iraqis who have risked their lives to support the United States . . . people are sacrificing their lives to help the United States.'' The legislation has been endorsed by organizations including Refugees International, Refugee Council USA which encompasses Amnesty International USA, Arab-American and Chaldean Council, Chaldean Federation of America, Church World Service/Immigration and Refugee Program, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, International Rescue Committee, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Jubilee Campaign USA, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Migration & Refugee Services/United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, and WorId Relief, the International Rescue Committee, and the PEN American center. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to keep the faith with those many brave Iraqis whose lives are in jeopardy because of their association with our forces in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of suport be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year, the Nation was stunned by the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby mines. Those disasters exposed the many failures in our laws on mine safety and mine health, and made clear that it is essential to bring these protections into the modern world. Last year, Congress came together to take a vital step toward protecting the Nation's miners with the passage of the MINER Act, which addressed critical lapses in mine safety and accident response, but advances in scientific research and technological development show us that there is much more to be done. In part through the new scrutiny that is taking place under the MINER Act, we have learned a great deal more about what puts miners in danger and how to prevent it. We need to begin to address these other pressing safety and health needs. That is why today I am introducing the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007. There is much we can do in the area of mine safety emergencies to increase miners' chances of survival, and this legislation encourages the development of technologies to do so. It requires stronger seal barriers to protect miners from explosions in hazardous mining areas. It also requires mine companies to adopt more sophisticated communications technology to stay in touch with miners underground, and to install rescue chambers to protect miners in the event of an explosion or fire. The bill does more to eliminate dangerous conditions in mines before they harm miners, by banning the unsafe practice of ventilating mines in the same passageway as coal-dust laden conveyor belts. This practice, unfortunately, has been approved by the Bush administration, and it contributed to the tragic fire at Alma mine last year. Other reforms are essential as well. Establishing a national call center can quickly coordinate emergency information and enhance mine rescue and recovery operations. To see that accident investigations are objective and thorough, the legislation requires an independent investigation to be conducted if miners or their families ask for one. Successful prevention depends also on the willingness of miners to tell the truth about their working conditions. Safeguards are needed to allow them to speak out about on-the-job hazards without fearing for their jobs. The bill establishes an independent ombudsman, so miners' safety complaints can be heard and fully addressed, without jeopardizing miners who blow the whistle on job hazards. Tragically, we continue to see miners developing symptoms of black lung disease and other deadly respiratory illnesses of the past. To protect them, the bill requires operators to provide miners with personal dust monitors developed and certified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. To make underground air safer, the bill adopts the Institute's levels for exposure to coal dust, silica dust, and other air contaminants. It also adopts the higher OSHA standard for asbestos. We cannot continue to allow miners to work without the protection of these important health standards. Mining is an essential industry, and the nation's miners deserve the safest possible working conditions. We have a responsibility to see that our mine safety laws make our mines the safest and healthiest in the world. America's miners deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support the Mine Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, because of the war in Iraq, more than 2 million Iraqis have been internally displaced in their own country, and 2 million other Iraqis are in neighboring countries throughout the region, primarily Jordan and Syria. The humanitarian needs of the refugees and internally displaced Iraqis are immense. If their needs are not quickly and adequately met, these populations could become a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. Iraqi refugees are also a significant financial burden on countries in the region. As the Iraq Study Group concluded, if the refugee crisis ``is not addressed, Iraq and the region could be further destabilized.'' Many Iraqis who have worked in critical positions in direct support of the U.S. Government in Iraq have been killed or injured in reprisals for their support of our effort. Many more Iraqis associated with the United States have fled their country in fear of being killed or injured. Clearly, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United States, but we have a fundamental obligation to help the vast number of Iraqis displaced in Iraq and throughout the region by the war and the associated chaos, especially those who have supported America's efforts in Iraq. In April 2007, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbray said the United States ``could resettle up to 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.'' In May 2007, Under Secretary Paula Dobriansky said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the United States military and embassy.'' On June 8, Secretary Rice said ``the people that I'm most worried about in the near term are the people who've worked with us who might be subject to recrimination and reprisal. And we're trying to step up our efforts on their behalf.'' It is essential for the United States to develop a comprehensive and effective approach to meet the rapidly growing needs of Iraq's refugees and internally displaced persons, especially those who are associated with the United States. The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Smith, Biden, Hagel, Leahy, Levin, and Lieberman seeks to accomplish these goals. First, the legislation would create a special category of applicants for refugee status in Iraq. Those eligible for this program, a P-2 category for refugees of special humanitarian concern, would be the Iraqis most closely associated with the United States. Iraqis who qualify would be those, 1. who have been employed by or worked directly with the U.S. Government in Iraq; or, 2. who were employed in Iraq by a media or nongovernmental organization based in the United States or by an organization or entity that has received a grant from, or entered into a cooperative agreement or contract with, the U.S. Government; or, 3. who are spouses, children, sons, daughters, siblings and parents of those who worked for or with us; or, 4. who are members of religious or minority communities and have close family members in the U.S. Those eligible would not have to be referred to our Government by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a U.S. Embassy. All applicants, however, would need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Applicants would be required to go through recently approved extensive security screening. P-2 visas for these refugees would come out of the overall authorized admissions number for the refugee program, currently established at 70,000. That figure is determined every year by the President in close consultation with the Congress. In addition to the new P-2 category of refugee applications, the legislation would expand the current U.S. Government program which provides special immigrant visas only to Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Those eligible for the expanded special immigrant visa program are Iraqis who have been employed by or worked directly with the United States for 1 year in the aggregate since 2003, and need not have served as a translator or interpreter for the military or Department of State. Applicants for SIV visas would not need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, but they would need to meet security requirements, demonstrate that they provided faithful service to our Government, and provide a recommendation or evaluation. The Secretary of State would be required to provide applicants with protection or immediate removal from Iraq if they are in immediate danger. Five thousand of these visas would be available yearly for 5 years. Importantly, our legislation requires the Secretary of State to establish a program for processing P-2 refugees and SIV applicants in Iraq and in countries in the region. The Secretary would be required to report to the Congress within 60 days on plans to establish this program. Currently, there is no mechanism for applying for refugee status in Iraq. Those fleeing persecution and seeking refugee status must find their way to Jordan or Syria, locate an official from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and then be referred to the U.S. Government by the United Nations. Because of the growing violence and risk for those associated with the United States, we need to find a way to address this problem for Iraqis inside Iraq. Our bill does not eliminate the referral system through the United Nations, or any other existing system, but it does create an essential mechanism for direct applications in country. To oversee the implementation of this new program, the Secretary of State would be required to establish in the Embassy in Baghdad a Minister Counselor for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. This senior official would be responsible for overseeing the in-country processing of P-2 refugee and special immigrant visa applicants, and would have authority to refer them directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program. A parallel position would be created in the American embassies in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria to oversee the application process of P-2 refugees of special humanitarian concern. SIV applicants would work through regular consular channels in embassies in those countries. Recognizing that the United States can only resettle a small number of the most vulnerable refugees within our borders, the Secretary of State would be required to consult with other countries about resettlement of refugee populations, develop mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety, and provide assistance to the countries in doing so. In addition, the legislation would allow Iraqis denied asylum after March 2003 based on changed conditions to file a new petition with an immigration judge to reopen their cases. Those denied asylum, for example, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the United States is committed to building democracy in Iraq should be permitted to make their case again before a judge. After 90 days, and annually thereafter, the President would be required to submit an unclassified report to Congress with a classified annex if necessary, assessing the financial, security, personnel, considerations and resources necessary to establish the programs required in the act. After 90 days, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to submit a report to Congress outlining plans to expedite processing of Iraqi refugees, including a temporary expansion of the Refugee Corps, and plans to enhance existing systems for conducting background and security checks for Iraqis applying through the program. More than 5 years ago, Arthur Helton, perhaps this country's staunchest advocate for the rights of refugees wrote, ``Refugees matter . . . for a wide variety of reasons . . . Refugees are a product of humanity's worst instincts--the willingness of some persons to oppress others--as well as some of its best instincts--the willingness of many to assist and protect the helpless . . . In personal terms, we care about refugees because of the seed of fear that lurks in all of us that can be stated so simply: it could be me.'' A year later, Arthur Helton gave his life for his beliefs. He was killed in Baghdad in 2003 while meeting with U.N. Special Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello when a bomb destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Iraq. But his words resonate today, especially when we consider the very human cost of the war in Iraq, and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis, men, women, and children, who have fled their homes and their country to escape the violence of a nation at war with itself. 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. At a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, chilling testimony was presented about the dangers Iraqis face because of their association with America. One Iraqi, Sami, was a translator for U.S. and Coalition forces and who now lives in the United States. He said, ``I too, have been targeted for my death. My name was listed on the doors of several mosques calling for my death. Supposed friends of mine saw my name on the list and turned on me because they believed I was traitor . . . In June 2006, I learned that I had been granted special status. As a result, today I live free from the fear of persecution and threats to my life that I faced on a daily basis in Iraq. My hope is that all brave Iraqis who worked and braved so much will have the same chance as I have had to live in freedom.'' Another Iraqi, John, worked as a water service man for U.S. troops. He said, ``My wife, my six children and myself fled Iraq after terrorist groups targeted me and my family because I aided the Americans by supplying water to their service camps.'' Ken Bacon, president of Refugees International, summed it up well when he said, ``There is a large group of Iraqis who have risked their lives to support the United States . . . people are sacrificing their lives to help the United States.'' The legislation has been endorsed by organizations including Refugees International, Refugee Council USA which encompasses Amnesty International USA, Arab-American and Chaldean Council, Chaldean Federation of America, Church World Service/Immigration and Refugee Program, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, International Rescue Committee, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Jubilee Campaign USA, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Migration & Refugee Services/United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, and WorId Relief, the International Rescue Committee, and the PEN American center. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to keep the faith with those many brave Iraqis whose lives are in jeopardy because of their association with our forces in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of suport be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year, the Nation was stunned by the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby mines. Those disasters exposed the many failures in our laws on mine safety and mine health, and made clear that it is essential to bring these protections into the modern world. Last year, Congress came together to take a vital step toward protecting the Nation's miners with the passage of the MINER Act, which addressed critical lapses in mine safety and accident response, but advances in scientific research and technological development show us that there is much more to be done. In part through the new scrutiny that is taking place under the MINER Act, we have learned a great deal more about what puts miners in danger and how to prevent it. We need to begin to address these other pressing safety and health needs. That is why today I am introducing the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007. There is much we can do in the area of mine safety emergencies to increase miners' chances of survival, and this legislation encourages the development of technologies to do so. It requires stronger seal barriers to protect miners from explosions in hazardous mining areas. It also requires mine companies to adopt more sophisticated communications technology to stay in touch with miners underground, and to install rescue chambers to protect miners in the event of an explosion or fire. The bill does more to eliminate dangerous conditions in mines before they harm miners, by banning the unsafe practice of ventilating mines in the same passageway as coal-dust laden conveyor belts. This practice, unfortunately, has been approved by the Bush administration, and it contributed to the tragic fire at Alma mine last year. Other reforms are essential as well. Establishing a national call center can quickly coordinate emergency information and enhance mine rescue and recovery operations. To see that accident investigations are objective and thorough, the legislation requires an independent investigation to be conducted if miners or their families ask for one. Successful prevention depends also on the willingness of miners to tell the truth about their working conditions. Safeguards are needed to allow them to speak out about on-the-job hazards without fearing for their jobs. The bill establishes an independent ombudsman, so miners' safety complaints can be heard and fully addressed, without jeopardizing miners who blow the whistle on job hazards. Tragically, we continue to see miners developing symptoms of black lung disease and other deadly respiratory illnesses of the past. To protect them, the bill requires operators to provide miners with personal dust monitors developed and certified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. To make underground air safer, the bill adopts the Institute's levels for exposure to coal dust, silica dust, and other air contaminants. It also adopts the higher OSHA standard for asbestos. We cannot continue to allow miners to work without the protection of these important health standards. Mining is an essential industry, and the nation's miners deserve the safest possible working conditions. We have a responsibility to see that our mine safety laws make our mines the safest and healthiest in the world. America's miners deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support the Mine Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the Senate's action on this important legislation, the Head Start for School Readiness Act. I commend Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd, and Senator Alexander for their bipartisan cooperation on this legislation, and I thank all the Senators on the HELP Committee for their contributions to improving Head Start to meet today's challenges. We began this process four years ago. Today, our bipartisan efforts have resulted in the strengthening of a 42 year old program that has been a lifeline of support for millions of low-income children preparing for school and for life. Since the War on Poverty, Head Start has delivered the assistance needed to enable disadvantaged children to arrive at school, ready to learn. Its comprehensive services provide balanced meals for children, support visits to the doctor and dentist, and teach young children important learning and social skills. It helps families with the greatest needs get on their feet, and encourages parents to participate actively in their child's early development. Years of evaluation have demonstrated that Head Start works. A Federal survey found that Head Start children make both academic and social gains under the program, and that these gains continue when children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math. Over the years, we've also learned more about how Head Start can be improved. This reauthorization applies that knowledge to make modifications in the program, and it will enable Head Start to be even more effective in the years ahead. In this legislation, we expand Head Start to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with State programs for low- income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on critical early learning skills and school readiness. We enhance the educational goals for Head Start teachers. We preserve the community-based structure of the program to ensure that the needs of local neighborhoods and their children are the top priority. We also provide greater accountability for the program, including new policies to provide improved monitoring visits and guarantee that programs with deficiencies receive needed attention and support. To strengthen Head Start, we must begin by providing more resources for it. Child poverty is on the rise again and the need for Head Start is greater than ever. Today, less than 50 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in the program. Hundreds of thousands of 3- and 4-year-olds are left out because of inadequate funding. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. This legislation expands access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children and their families as possible. The bill establishes goals to increase funding and expand the program to provide nearly $8 billion worth of services by 2010. These funding levels are essential to carry out the essential reforms in the legislation and to serve thousands of additional children and families. In 1994, we enacted Early Head Start to benefit infants, toddlers, and their families. It has worked ever since. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Early Head Start parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them. These activities increase a child's desire to learn and strengthen a family's commitment to education. Our bill doubles the size of Early Head Start over the course of the authorization, and includes a commitment to serve 56,000 additional children. The bill also establishes a Head Start Collaboration Office in every State to improve support for Head Start children, to align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and to strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will work hand in hand with the Head Start network of training and technical assistance to support grantees in meeting the goals of preparing children for school. I'm especially pleased that the bill provides the blueprint needed to upgrade and strengthen other early childhood education programs and services in the states. The bill provides an active role for states in coordinating early childhood education and development programs, and designates an Early Care and Education Council in each state to undertake the activities essential to developing a comprehensive system for the nation's youngest children. The councils will conduct an inventory of children's needs, develop plans for data collection, support early childhood educators, review and upgrade early learning standards, and make recommendations on technical assistance and training. For States ready to move forward and implement their statewide plan, the legislation offers $100 million to support incentive grants for States to implement these important efforts. Over the past four decades, Head Start has developed quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters, numbers, and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is already a model program, but we can enhance its quality even more. The bill strengthens literacy efforts currently underway in Head Start programs. We know the key to future reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. The bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, continuing to promote parent literacy, and working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes. In addition, we make a commitment in the bill to upgrade all of the educational components of Head Start, and ensure that the services are aligned with expectations for children's kindergarten year and continue to be driven by the effective Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed leaders who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is only half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and the turnover is high, about 11 percent a year. Because teacher quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill establishes a goal to ensure that every Head Start teacher earns an A.A. degree, and that half earn their B.A. degree by the next time Congress revisits the program. Head Start teachers and staff are the greatest resource for children and families in the program, and investing in their development must be a priority. I look forward to working with my colleagues to match these ambitious goals with the funding needed to make them a reality. Our legislation also gives local Head Start programs greater authority to assess the needs of families in their communities and define the services necessary to meet those needs. We've lifted the eligibility requirements under the program, so that families living below 130 percent of the Federal poverty rate can qualify and participate in Head Start. Yet we still prioritize services to children who need them the most. If programs determine that a greater share of infants and toddlers need services, our bill allows them to apply to the Secretary to convert and expand services to our youngest children. If programs identify a need to provide full-day or full-year care for children and families, they can take steps to do this as well. Accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its commitment to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth. Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Our bill takes a further step to improve this process by ensuring that monitoring results and feedback are available to programs and used for their improvement. We also take steps to address programs with serious deficiencies, and ensure that substantial problems in programs do not languish at the expense of children. If a local program is unable to meet Head Start's high standards of quality, others should step in. Every Head Start child deserves to develop and learn in a high-quality program. Our bill also takes an important step to suspend the Head Start National Reporting System. Four years ago, many of us insisted that instead of rushing forward with a national test of hundreds of thousands of children, Head Start would be better served if plans were developed more deliberately to ensure an appropriate means to gather and report child outcomes in programs. That appeal was ignored, and the Administration proceeded with an assessment--without sufficient authorization or oversight from Congress--that was later proven flawed and inconsistent with professional standards for testing and measurement. This legislation requires that the assessments used in Head Start must be held to the highest standard. Head Start's measures must be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what they assess, and sufficient to reflect the development of the whole child. We've called on the National Academy of Sciences to survey and study the state of assessments and outcomes appropriate for young children in environments like Head Start. Their study will be of great value as we consider how best to move forward in Head Start and other early childhood settings. Finally, the bill maintains the essential Federal-to-local structure of Head Start, and rejects other proposals that would dilute this important focus. Head Start's design enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Head Start's regulations guarantee a universal standard of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to its children and families. The focus on local neighborhoods and their children must always be at the heart of Head Start. One of our highest priorities in Congress is to expand educational opportunities for every American. In this age of globalization, every citizen deserves a chance to acquire the educational skills needed to compete in the modem economy. This process starts early--it begins at birth and continues throughout the early years, long before children enter kindergarten. The Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 will keep Head Start on its successful path, and enable this vital program to continue to thrive and improve. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation in the Senate, and a productive Conference with the House on the important reforms in this bill. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, S. 556 affirms the active role that States have in coordinating their system of early childhood education programs, and encourages States to enhance that role to increase the quality of programs available to young children. The act designates an early care and education council in each State for the purposes of conducting an inventory of children's needs and exploring the availability of prekindergarten opportunities; exploring areas for collaboration and coordination across programs; developing plans for data collection and to support the professional development of early childhood educators; and providing for the review and upgrading of State early learning standards. For those States prepared and interested in moving forward with a statewide plan encompassing these activities, S. 556 provides for one-time incentive grants to further develop and implement these important efforts. S. 556 also permit States to designate an existing entity to serve as the State advisory council on early childhood education and care, if such entity includes representation consistent with members mentioned in the act.

Mr. KENNEDY. I agree and would be happy to work with you on this issue. S. 556 directs Governors to designate specific individuals as members of the State advisory council to the maximum extent possible. While some members may need to be added by States to their existing councils in order to meet the goals of this legislation, I agree fully that Governors will need some flexibility in this function. Therefore, I support grant additional discretion as they consider the makeup and function of their existing councils in relation to the roles and responsibilities under this Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's inquiry on this important point. That is not my intention, and S. 556 does not stipulate any requirements for States to conduct new efforts concerning their assessment of children's needs, opportunities for collaboration and coordination, the establishment of a unified data system, professional development activities, or other efforts described under the responsibilities of the State Advisory Council in this legislation. My own State of Massachusetts has also been a leader in carrying out several of these efforts through our own State Department of Early Care and Education. Preexisting and current efforts in States to improve and enhance the quality of early childhood education programs would certainly help fulfill and count toward the responsibilities stipulated by the Head Start for School Readiness Act. I ask Senator Enzi if he agrees with this point.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues for their work with me on these issues, and I commend them for their leadership on the important reforms in this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this month marks the 75th anniversary season of Jacob's Pillow. Based in Becket, MA, it is the longest running dance festival in the United States. Jacob's Pillow is renowned in the dance world for its commitment to excellence and beloved by audiences throughout the world for the quality and diversity of its programming. This prestigious organization is one of the most significant cultural groups in Western Massachusetts and it attracts tens of thousands of visitors to the beautiful Berkshire Mountains each summer. Cultural tourism is the second largest industry in Massachusetts, and cultural jewels such as Jacob's Pillow are the anchors of the industry. Year after year, surveys demonstrate that arts, culture, and heritage are among the top reasons for visiting Massachusetts. With its proud heritage, Jacob's Pillow continues to be one of the most dynamic centers of dance in our State and across the country. As Mikhail Baryshnikov has said, ``Jacob's Pillow is one of America's most precious cultural assets--a haven for choreographers and dancers and an environment that nurtures the creation of new work.'' The site was originally a family farm settled with extraordinary pioneering spirit in the 1700s, and it became a station on the Underground Railroad in the 19th century for slaves escaping to freedom. In 1933, Jacob's Pillow was established as a dance festival and school. Its mission continues today to support dance creation, presentation, education, and preservation. Through this work, it broadens appreciation and understanding for classical and modern dance--and it provides an important opportunity for dancers and choreographers to develop their own work and skills. In addition to its regular programming, Jacob's Pillow also offers over 200 free events each season, including performances, workshops, lectures, and discussions with artists. It maintains a preservation program with rare archives open to the public, a training program for arts administrators, year-round community programs, and a creative development residency program. Jacob's Pillow also encompasses a professional school training and mentoring program for emerging dancers and is recognized throughout the globe as a center for arts leadership in the world of dance. It is the first and only dance institution in the United States to be declared a National Historic Landmark for its important part in our country's cultural heritage. It embodies the very best in cultural achievement and has enhanced the causes of the many talented artists who have performed on its stages and enhanced the lives of countless audiences who have enjoyed their exceptional performances. As President Kennedy said, ``I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit.'' I commend the many dedicated persons who have made Jacob's Pillow such a remarkable success over the past 75 years. May this treasure of Berkshire County continue to enrich us all in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when Alberto Gonzales came before the Senate as the President's nominee for Attorney General, many of us were concerned that he would not be able to distinguish between his past role as White House Counsel and his new role as Attorney General. During his service as counsel to the President, he had assisted the President in promulgating a series of disastrous policies that ran roughshod over the rule of law and damaged the United States in the eyes of the world. He refused to give detainees the protections of the Geneva Conventions, calling them ``quaint.'' He facilitated the establishment of Guantanamo and denied other basic legal protections to detainees. He approved an interpretation of the law that was inconsistent with international agreements. He authorized the use of torture, a step that led to the horrors of Abu Ghraib. At every turn, he promoted an extreme view of the President's authority. Yet, when he came before the committee seeking confirmation, he assured us: ``With the consent of the Senate, I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the differences between the two roles.'' That assurance has proven hollow. On issue after issue, Mr. Gonzales has singlemindedly served the President's agenda, without any respect for the broader responsibilities of the Attorney General. He has continued to promote an extreme view of the President's power as Commander in Chief to authorize warrantless eavesdropping in violation of the law, secret detentions, abuse of detainees, and violations of the Geneva Conventions. He believes that the President can issue signing statements that nullify duly enacted statutes whenever they might limit the President's discretion. As Attorney General, he has used the enormous power of his office to promote the agenda of the White House. The current U.S. attorney scandal has revealed the devastating legacy of Mr. Gonzales's tenure as Attorney General. We now have a Department of Justice that is wide open to partisan influence and has abandoned many of the basic principles that kept the Department independent and assured the American people that its decisions were based on the rule of law. As a result, the Department of Justice is now embroiled in a scandal involving the firing of U.S. attorneys, under a process controlled by inexperienced, partisan staffers in consultation with the White House. U.S. attorneys were targeted for firing because they failed to serve the White House agenda. Karl Rove and the President passed along to the Attorney General complaints that U.S. attorneys failed to pursue voter fraud. Over the past 5 years, the Department of Justice has actually pushed hard to prosecute voter fraud, but among the hundreds of millions of votes cast in that period, it has managed to convict only 86 people nationwide. The pursuit of virtually nonexistent voter fraud at the ballot box is part of a Republican effort to suppress the legitimate votes of minority, elderly, and disabled voters. Other measures taken in this cynical scheme include photo ID laws and purges of voter rolls. The conclusion is inescapable that the firings of U.S. attorneys were part of an effort to put partisans in charge of U.S. attorney offices in key States. New Mexico, Washington, Arkansas and Nevada are all closely contested States. Add those States to which the Attorney General sent interim appointees from Washington in the past 2 years-- Florida, Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota--and the pattern is clear. Attorney General Gonzales, more than any other Attorney General in memory, has tried to turn the Department of Justice into an arm of a political party. In addition, under his leadership, the Department's hiring procedures have been corrupted by partisan officials who rejected longstanding merit-based hiring procedures and placed political party loyalty ahead of legal merit in hiring career attorneys. His Department of Justice has tried to obliterate the distinction between political appointees and career civil servants. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gonzales has repeatedly made false statements. He told us the warrantless eavesdropping program could not be conducted within the limits of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Then, on the eve of an appearance before the committee, he told us that the program now fits within FISA. He told us that there had not been significant disagreement over that program, but we now know that as many as 30 members of the Justice Department were prepared to resign if an earlier version of the program proceeded unchanged. He stated that he had not seen memoranda or been involved in discussions about the U.S. attorney firings, but it was later revealed that he did both. He told us that only eight U.S. attorneys had been targeted for firing, but it turns out the list was longer. He has said scores of times that he does not recall key meetings and events. With each misstatement and memory lapse, the Attorney General's credibility has faded until there is nothing left. In the years I have served in this body, I have had the privilege to work with many Attorneys General. The defining quality of the outstanding occupants of that office--both Democrats and Republicans-- has been an understanding that the law and the evidence trump loyalty to a political party or a president. Respect for the rule of law lies at the heart of our democracy. If our machinery of justice becomes just another means to preserve and promote the power of the party in office, we have corrupted our democracy. If the American people believe that partisanship is driving law enforcement, our system of justice cannot survive. We need a strong and credible Attorney General who believes deeply in our system of justice as we undertake the difficult and essential job of restoring the credibility of the Department of Justice. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of no-confidence as a first step in rebuilding the faith of the American people in the Department of Justice.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 177, S. Res. 110.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 193, S. Res. 171.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 12; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the first half under the control of the Republicans and the second half under the control of the majority; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate the respective party conferences; that all time during morning business and the adjournment or recess count postcloture; that at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, the motion to proceed be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and the Senate then proceed to H.R. 6.