Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of fundamental importance and fundamental fairness, legislation we will be voting on tomorrow in the late morning, it is called the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. This week, May 11 to May 17, is Police Week, when we honor the sacrifices of the men and women of the law enforcement community who lost their lives this year. These officers paid the ultimate price for their service to our communities. They are American heroes, as are all of the firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders across the country who protect our families and communities every day. President Kennedy established the first Police Week in 1962. He called on all Americans to recognize the essential role public safety officers play in safeguarding our rights and freedoms. That role is even more important in today's complex and often dangerous world. We all continue to enjoy the fundamental rights of a free people because of the sacrifices of these dedicated public servants. The least that we owe them in return is to protect their basic rights and to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. Unfortunately, too many of our public safety officers do not have the same rights in the workplace that most Americans enjoy. Police officers and firefighters perform some of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in our society, but they often don't have a voice at work to talk about safety issues. They are the ones on the front lines fighting fires, preventing crimes, apprehending offenders and doing their best to keep people safe from harm. But they don't have a way to share the lessons they have learned about how to do these difficult jobs safely and effectively. We are asking these workers to do so much for their communities, and the least we can do in return is give them a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions that affect their families and their futures. Across America, unions give millions of workers that kind of voice on the job. Throughout history, unions have always led the fight for a safer, fairer workplace. Unions mean decent wages and benefits. Unions mean economic security and dignity for workers, and a strong middle class for our Nation. Public safety officers deserve the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want the advantages that unions bring. Providing these basic rights of first responders is essential not only for their own interests but also for the safety of our communities, and the safety of our entire Nation. In this post-9/11 era, we have asked first responders to take on a new and indispensable role in homeland security. We face new threats that require efficient and effective coordination between State and local public safety workers and federal security agencies. With these new partnerships, it becomes vital to our national interest that State and local public safety services are carried out as effectively as possible. Studies show that giving workers a voice at the table, and facilitating cooperation between public safety workers and their employers is the best way to improve the quality of public safety services and protect our homeland security. That is why it is an honor to join Senator Gregg in sponsoring the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. This important bill will ensure that all firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel have the opportunity to have a voice in the policies that affect their safety and their livelihoods. Under this bill, public safety officers will have the right to form and join a union and to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. The bill also provides a way to resolve disputes, promote cooperation between labor and management, and reduce the conflicts that can undermine public safety. The legislation accomplishes these important goals in fair and reasonable ways. States that already have collective bargaining in place for public safety workers are not affected by the bill at all. States that do not currently provide this basic workplace right may establish their own collective bargaining systems, or ask the assistance of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in doing so. This approach respects the autonomy of the States. The bill sets basic standards, but allows States to find their own separate ways to implement these standards. The bill does not dictate particular contract terms--all it requires is that there be a process for public safety officers and their employers to come to the table and talk. Each State legislature can have the last word on any agreement that is reached through these negotiations. This careful approach preserves the balance between workers' rights and State interests, enabling each State to have a collective-bargaining system that meets its particular needs and requirements. Providing these basic workplace rights for all first responders will benefit workers, governments, and the public safety. Collective bargaining is the best way to achieve these strong, cooperative partnerships. As Dennis Compton, fire chief in the city of Phoenix, has said: When labor and management leaders work together to build mutual trust, mutual respect, and a strong commitment to service, it helps focus [a] fire department on what is truly most important . . . providing excellent service to the customers. Across the country, we have seen how collective bargaining and public safety go hand in hand. In Omaha, the local firefighters' union and the city came together to find innovative ways to meet national safety standards and combat persistent hazards, such as asbestos and unsafe trucks, and their cooperation is paying off. The department previously had one death in the line of duty every 5 years, but since workers received a voice in decisions on safety and health, there have been no fatalities in 12 years. In Hennepin County, MN, the union representing firefighters and paramedical personnel worked with management to improve services for the public. Through the union, the workers in the county were able to offer their expertise about how to redesign the county's ambulances and stretchers. These new designs were adopted and saved many firefighters and paramedics from painful back and neck injuries. In turn, the county-- and the taxpayers--saved money in workers' compensation and disability benefits. Taxpayers are obtaining better service at lower cost in Miami as well, because of cooperation between the firefighters' union and the city. The two sides worked together to establish one of the Nation's foremost fire department-based emergency medical services. Response time has been reduced and lives have been saved as a result. Families and communities deserve the best public safety services we can provide, and they start with the strong foundation that collective bargaining provides. Every New York City firefighter, emergency medical technician, and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement, and those agreements strengthened their ability to respond so effectively in that massive crisis. It is long past time to stop treating our heroic first responders as second class citizens. Giving them the rights they deserve is a matter of fundamental fairness, and an urgent matter of public safety. I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to give our heroes the respect and support they deserve by passing this needed legislation. Mr. President, this chart indicates what I mentioned, that the union in Miami, together with the city, established one of the Nation's foremost fire department-based EMS services, and they had very substantial savings. This chart is interesting. States without collective bargaining have 39 percent more firefighter fatalities than States that do. Many fire chiefs acknowledge that this is a result of better communication, better cooperation, and a better exchange of information on how to do the job and do it safely. That is what this legislation does. Look at the difference when we are talking about fatalities. This is what is important. This next chart shows that some 300,000 police officers in 24 States would gain basic workplace rights under the Cooperation Act. On this chart, we have more than 134,000 firefighters in 24 States who would gain basic workplace rights. That is why these firefighters, police officers, and first responders feel so strongly about this legislation. It is reasonable, it is responsible, it is sound, and it is necessary. We spend a good deal of time around here talking about how we need greater cooperation in dealing with the central challenges on national security and homeland security. Who is at the backbone of homeland security in the United States? Our firefighters, police officers, emergency medical services, and first responders. These are the groups, as indicated on this chart, that are in strong support of this legislation, for the reasons I outlined this evening. I intend, in the next 2 to 3 days, as we debate this legislation, to go into greater detail in all of these areas. On this issue, there is a strong case to be made. The time to act is now. This is an essential part of our whole national domestic homeland security. It is an essential part of making our fellow citizens safer in their community. This legislation has been reviewed and studied and has strong support in the Senate. It passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. I look forward to strong support in this body. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am speaking in support of legislation Senator Menendez and I have introduced today. It is the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to deliver timely and effective medical and mental health care to the individuals in custody. In the past week alone, the Washington Post, ``60 Minutes,'' and the New York Times have documented the shameful state of medical care in these detention facilities. These are people who come to the United States from all corners of the world. Some come to join their families; others come to search for jobs; others come as refugees. Some may be eligible to remain in the United States. Others may be subject to deportation. But at a minimum, they deserve basic medical care while in detention pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings, which often can take years. None of them deserves a death sentence. Congress has an obligation to act. The bill's introduction is an important first step, and the legislation raises the medical standards and restores accountability for meeting those standards. I look forward to working closely with Senator Menendez and others in the Senate to address what is really a national disgrace.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, The issue of wind coverage is important and is a concern of many families across the country and in my home State of Massachusetts and the Cape. Legislation must be developed that helps those families facing the threat of wind damage without harming those who already have flood insurance. I have the assurance from the chairman of the Banking Committee, my friend the senior Senator from Connecticut, that this is his intention as well and that he intends for a commission to study the issue and present to Congress a set of responsible recommendations for addressing this need. For this reason, I oppose the Wicker amendment at this time in order to allow further study of the matter and that a consensus approach may be put forward in the Senate in the near future. Amendment No. 4719

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico. We will not have a chance today to talk about mental health parity. But whenever I see him speak on the floor I am further inspired to make sure we are going to get that legislation passed in this Congress. I thank him for all of his good work in that undertaking. We are strongly committed to ensuring that this very important health policy issue is going to be addressed in the Congress. I see my friend from Illinois. I know he was seeking the floor. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized after I finish.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, tomorrow we are going to have the report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the unemployment figures in this country. Those unemployment figures may be statistics to some, but they are lost hopes and dreams to millions of our fellow citizens. They are a key indicator of the state of our economy. I think most of us who have had the opportunity to travel our States and listen to working families understand the extraordinary pressures these families are under, the incredible anxiety that goes to the heart and soul of these families. They really wonder if somehow they are guilty in some way for not being able to deal with the economic challenges they are facing, whether it is the increased cost of gas at the pump, or whether it is the increasing cost of tuition, the increasing cost of health care, or the challenges they are facing with their mortgages. This afternoon I want to speak for a few minutes about the issue of unemployment and how that has impacted so many of our fellow citizens and what the implications are for so many of our fellow citizens. Even though we do not have the figures, I think we can reliably suggest there is going to be a further increase in the number of unemployed Americans when we get the figures tomorrow morning. These are the figures so far this year: we see 76,000 jobs lost in January; in February, 76,000; some 80,000 in March--232,000 jobs were lost over the period of these 3 months. There were 50,000 construction jobs lost. That sends a message in and of itself. If we look at this chart, we see the total number of unemployed. These are the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. In March of 2008 we have 7.8 million unemployed and only 3.9 million jobs. That's two workers for every job. Here we have individuals, Americans, who have worked hard, played by the rules, and, through no fault of their own, because of the failure of fiscal and monetary policy, they have lost their jobs. Yet when we look back at the total number of job openings, they are limited. These Americans are getting squeezed. How are they going to be able to find jobs when the jobs are not available even if they have the skills? We are going to come back to that in just a moment. These families are hurting. That is why it is so important that we have an increase in the unemployment compensation program that is now in surplus of about $35 billion. That fund has actually been paid into by American workers. They have paid into the fund $35 billion, and the reason they paid in was for circumstances such as this, a fiscal and monetary economic policy which has failed them. They are entitled to receive the unemployment compensation. Yet we have an administration which has consistently opposed extending unemployment benefits. I am going to come to that in just a moment too. Here are recent veterans who having served, are having a hard time finding work. The total workforce, 5.1 percent unemployed; for these veterans serving after 2001, we can see their unemployment is 6.1 percent. And the young male veterans, serving after September 2001, are at 11.2 percent. These are all veterans, but this is young men--11.2 percent. These young Americans were the ones who had the burden of conflict and now they are facing the burden, at home, of an economy that will not serve them and serve their interests. Where is the burden falling? It is falling on our young veterans, and it is falling particularly hard. This chart indicates where the burden of this economy is falling. We are finding out it is increasingly falling on adult women, who are seeing a sharper rise in unemployment rates than men. There is a 21- percent increase for women, and 15 percent for men, between March of 2007 and March of 2008. Do we understand how it is squeezing women? Women are more likely to have subprime mortgages than men, despite having slightly better credit scores. Women are having their homes foreclosed at a more rapid rate than men, their unemployment rates are going up, and their savings are lower. They are the ones who are taking the brunt of this recession along with young veterans. Here we find women's earnings are falling faster than men's. Men's median income in 2007 fell one-half of 1 percent for men, women's fell 3 percent. We see increasing numbers of women are unemployed, and the wages of women who have jobs are being adversely impacted to a much higher and more significant degree. We see what has happened generally with regard to the economy. The stock market lost $2.7 trillion in value since May of 2007. This crisis has wiped out $2.7 trillion in home values. The dollar has lost one- third of its value, and the Federal debt has nearly doubled since this President took office. Again, we are looking at home values, which is the wealth for so many middle-income and working families--$2.7 trillion effectively has been wiped out during this last year. All these figures show middle-income families, working families, are taking the heavy brunt of the recession we are facing. We should ask ourselves what are we doing about this. If we look at what we have done at other times, we have granted extended unemployment benefits. Look at the last recessions we have had, from January 1980 to July 1980, and then July 1981 to November 1982, the average number of weeks of unemployment was 16 weeks. And we extended unemployment compensation. The next recession we had was July 1990 to March of 1991. The average weeks of unemployment was 13.9 weeks, but we had an extension of unemployment compensation. In March 2001 to November 2001, 15 weeks was the average number of weeks of unemployment, and we had an extension of the unemployment compensation. Here, look at this: 16.2 weeks is the average number of weeks workers are unemployed today--16.2 weeks--and this administration refuses to say the $35 billion that is in the unemployment compensation fund that you have worked for and contributed into that fund, should be available to you when we have adverse economic conditions. These are just the kind of conditions that they are there for. This administration refuses to do anything about it. It is a striking difference for working families who are trying to make it and provide for their families. Very briefly, this chart demonstrates that during a recession, among the limited economic stimulus measures, unemployment compensation is among the most promising investments--every dollar we invest in unemployment compensation has the effect of $1.64; for infrastructure it is $1.59 for every dollar invested; and it is $1.73 in food stamps. This is from Moody's chief economist. There is much less impact, obviously, for the Bush extended tax cuts. We should look at what is happening in food stamps--we do not frequently think about the numbers of our fellow American citizens who are dependent on food stamps, but we should pause now. We certainly should if we have been back home and listened to those who have been running the food banks in our States and we find out the condition of those food banks. 28 million Americans are projected to receive food stamps in fiscal year 2009--28 million Americans are going to be eligible for food stamps in 2009. Look at the indicators. This is another indicator about what is happening in the economy, the kind of pressures that middle-income and working families have. We could also ask, Why aren't we trying to provide training for these workers who are struggling to find a job? If we improve their skills, they will be able to find a job--is that right? No, it is wrong. What we are finding is Americans cannot access job training programs. This administration has been cutting back virtually every year on job training programs. Look at this. In Massachusetts alone, for every available slot in a job training program there are 21 workers on a waiting list. Do we understand? There are 21 workers on a waiting list. These are American men and women who want to work, have worked, want to provide for their families, and they cannot even get the training in order to be able to fill the jobs. We have 83,000 jobs in my State that are not being filled today, but we have cut back. This administration has cut back on the training programs. This is the kind of misstep this administration has taken time in and time out. I just remind the Senate about action that we took just yesterday with regard to students and the student loan program. One urgent step that we must take to ensure that the slumping economy does not prevent young people from going to college is to provide some help and assistance, and we did yesterday. Right now, in May, students and their parents are applying for financial aid and the loans they need to attend college in the fall. This is happening just as some banks have said they are no longer offering student loans. We cannot allow the slumping economy to limit the horizons of a new generation of Americans. Students and parents need to know we will do everything we can to guarantee that every single student who needs a loan to go to college in the fall will get one, even in these troubled economic times. We will increase the amount of grant aid available to relieve the debt burden on needy students. Yesterday the Senate passed legislation to do just that. The House of Representatives also passed the legislation just a few hours ago, and President Bush has indicated that he will sign it into law. This is what the emergency legislation does: For students, if private loans through the banks dry up, they can get lower cost government-guaranteed loans to take their place. So no matter what happens in the private loan market, the government loans will be there, and they will be there for them. This guarantee comes in two ways. First, the bill expands the amount of Federal loans available for a student for 4 years of college from $23,000 to $31,000, an $8,000 increase. Second, it ensures that students will have easy access to Federal loans. If banks are not willing to make these loans to students, State- based, nonprofit agencies, called the guaranty agencies, will take their place. So for every student, there will always be someone to provide the loans, either through the private sector or through the Government. Also, for thousands of low-income students, we increased the grant aid by up to $1,300 a year for underclassmen and $4,000 a year for upperclassmen. That is not a lot, but it is a part of an ongoing commitment to help low-income college students avoid the crushing burdens of debt that inevitably distort their choices for the future. The bill also helps parents by providing them with better options and better access to the low-cost Federal PLUS loans alternative. This provides help to parents. It allows the parents to delay the repayment on the loans until their child has graduated from college. It makes it easier for parents who have been hit by the mortgage crisis to obtain these low-cost loans; help for the students, help as well for families. Finally, the bill helps stabilize the overall student loan market by authorizing the Secretary of Education to purchase outstanding federal loans, allowing private lenders to replenish their capital so they can make new loans to students and parents. For the 6 million students and over 700,000 parents currently relying on low cost federally subsidized loans, these steps mean they will continue to have ready access to these funds, even as the credit markets discourage lender participation in the Federal program. In other words, students and parents will now have multiple avenues to obtain low-cost Federal loans. Fortunately, Congress has taken prompt action to prevent college students from becoming the next victims of our failing economy, and I commend President Bush for urging us to do so. I am grateful to Senator Enzi, Congressman Miller, Congressman McKeon for their partnership on this legislation, and for the support and assistance of the Secretary of Education. I hope we can replicate this bipartisan effort in tackling other urgent economic issues. There is much work to be done to ensure that Main Street is insulated from the problems of Wall Street. It is clear that the Nation faces a serious ongoing economic challenge. We know what we have to do to put our economy and our country back on track. To do that we need to seize the moment and act immediately to help the millions of Americans who need our help the most. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Presdient, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Today, I introduce the National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act, which provides greater access to mental health services for our members of the National Guard and Reserve. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking an excruciatingly high toll on veterans and their families and the Nation obviously needs to give greater priority to their mental health needs, including the National Guard and the Reserve. As of April 29, 2008, 31,848 servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thirty percent of our soldiers struggle with brain injuries, mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, or a combination of these physical and mental wounds. Earlier this month, the RAND Corporation released a report documenting the alarmingly high numbers of veterans who struggle with mental health problems and brain injuries. One in 5 of these brave men and women report mental health problems. These mental health problems take various forms, including post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicidal tendencies and substance abuse, and they can persist for months or even years after their service. Some will never be the same again. It is our duty to give our National Guard and Reserves the best possible treatment, whatever their injury. Mental conditions should be treated with the same care and concern as physical conditions. This bill calls for the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, which provides counseling, education and family services to returning members of the Guard and reservists. It establishes a Joint Psychological Health Program in the National Guard Bureau to oversee and coordinate support for Guard members with mental illness or brain injuries, and it creates a pilot project for providing new applications of technology in tele-mental health and anti-stigma treatment. The National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act is a three- part approach to targeting these mental health needs, which require specialized access to care and services. Our National Guard and Reserves make incredible sacrifices for our country and we owe them the very best access to care possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Today, I introduce the National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act, which provides greater access to mental health services for our members of the National Guard and Reserve. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking an excruciatingly high toll on veterans and their families and the Nation obviously needs to give greater priority to their mental health needs, including the National Guard and the Reserve. As of April 29, 2008, 31,848 servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thirty percent of our soldiers struggle with brain injuries, mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, or a combination of these physical and mental wounds. Earlier this month, the RAND Corporation released a report documenting the alarmingly high numbers of veterans who struggle with mental health problems and brain injuries. One in 5 of these brave men and women report mental health problems. These mental health problems take various forms, including post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicidal tendencies and substance abuse, and they can persist for months or even years after their service. Some will never be the same again. It is our duty to give our National Guard and Reserves the best possible treatment, whatever their injury. Mental conditions should be treated with the same care and concern as physical conditions. This bill calls for the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, which provides counseling, education and family services to returning members of the Guard and reservists. It establishes a Joint Psychological Health Program in the National Guard Bureau to oversee and coordinate support for Guard members with mental illness or brain injuries, and it creates a pilot project for providing new applications of technology in tele-mental health and anti-stigma treatment. The National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act is a three- part approach to targeting these mental health needs, which require specialized access to care and services. Our National Guard and Reserves make incredible sacrifices for our country and we owe them the very best access to care possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with each passing day, families are confronted with growing challenges stemming from our lagging economy. We have had a surge of bad news, and there is almost certainly more to come. People have done everything right. They have worked hard all their lives. They have been good citizens and they cared for their communities. Many have served in the military. They have bought homes in which to raise their families and have dutifully paid the mortgage every month. But now they are seeing everything they have worked for, everything they have saved for and sacrificed for placed at risk. Families are stretched to the limit by stagnant wages and soaring prices. They have seen the value of their homes and retirement savings plunge. They wonder if they can afford to put gas in the tank in order to get to work. Now there is a danger that their children will be the next victims of the economic crisis. What started as a crisis in the housing market has spread to the banks and beyond. We must draw a line there and not let the crisis in the credit markets become a crisis for students struggling to pay for college and access to the American dream. If we allow that to happen, we not only limit the horizon for a new generation of Americans, but we will damage the long-term economic health of America as well. More than ever, a college degree is the key to the door of opportunity for individual students. Sending more of our students to college is key to our international competitiveness in the global economy. Yet students are facing new obstacles as they pay for their education. The credit crisis in the mortgage market has rippled throughout the lending industry and has begun to affect student loans. The full scope of the problem isn't clear yet, but we cannot afford to wait for a full-blown crisis before we act. Students are applying now for loans to cover the fall term. I am very pleased the Senate acted earlier today to ensure that the loans they need will be available, and I look forward to prompt action by the House. Already, almost 50 lenders have completely dropped out of the Federal program. Together, they make up almost 14 percent of the Federal student loan market. We need to make sure we have done everything we can to protect students in case that downturn continues. The first line of defense for students and families is the Direct Loan Program. It is insulated from the turbulence of the credit markets because the Federal Government provides the capital directly to students, without having to pay a bank or other middleman. I have urged colleges across the country to sign up to participate in this program to protect them from any problems in the credit markets. We need to take additional steps to shore up the alternative federally subsidized loan program--the FFEL program--in the short term as an additional backstop against unacceptable disruptions in the financial aid process later this year. The legislation the Senate passed today will protect students from the problems in the credit markets by ensuring they will be able to access federally subsidized loans. First, Mr. President, it ensures that private lenders will continue to participate in the federally subsidized program by giving the Secretary of Education the authority to buy outstanding Federal loans in order to provide lenders with the capital needed to make new loans to students for the upcoming school year. Second, as a backup for students who still have trouble obtaining a loan, the bill facilitates students' access to ``lender of last resort'' loans. These loans are provided to students through existing State-operated guaranty agencies, using capital advanced by the Secretary of Education. Third, the bill assists students who rely on higher cost, non- federally guaranteed loans by making additional low-cost Federal options available to them and their families. The bill raises Federal loan limits for undergraduate students by $2,000. This legislation also makes it easier for parents to take out low-cost federally subsidized loans on behalf of their children through the PLUS loan program. The bill ensures that parents affected by the current mortgage crisis can still obtain these loans, and it allows parents to delay repayment on these loans until after their child graduates from school. This is very important--the fact that it would delay repayment until after graduation. That is a major assistance to families. We are increasing the amount that will be available at the lower rates to college students, and we are extending the period of time that will help the families in terms of the repayment schedule. Finally, this bill helps students decrease student loan debt levels by expanding access to an existing grant program, the Academic Competitiveness Grants. Under this bill, an additional 100,000 students can receive up to $4,000 more a year in grant aid. We need to get these safety nets in place now before we are hit with a problem that is beyond our control. College affordability should not be determined by the quarterly profits or losses of the banks. The student aid system is not about banks' bottom lines. As the cost of college has tripled over the past 20 years, the Federal student aid system of grants and loans has made the dream of college a reality for millions of students who could not otherwise afford it. In 1993, less than half of all graduates had to take out college loans, but in 2004 nearly two-thirds had to borrow to finance their education. This chart reflects that. This chart reflects the students taking out the loans in 1993. Here it reflects those who took out loans for 2004. Years ago, when we passed the student loan program--back in 1965--these were effectively all grant programs; about 80 percent are grants, and only 20 percent are loans. We have seen this dramatic shift over the period of recent years now to the loan program. That has all kinds of implications in terms of indebtedness to students. Too often many of the students are now working one or two jobs, and they are also trying to pay off their debts in the future years. This has a very important adverse impact in terms of students and their ability to pursue careers, the careers that are lower paying, but so critical to our society, such as teaching, public health or social work. In the 2004-2005 school year in Massachusetts, 86 percent of students relied on Federal student loans. The average debt of these students was over $18,000. So the best way to help students and families afford college is to increase the grant aid. More aid up front means fewer loans and less debt on graduation day. That is why Congress acted last year on our promise to raise the maximum Pell grant to $5,400 by 2012, an increase of $1,350 under the level at which it stagnated under this Administration. As a result, students eligible for the maximum Pell grant will have to borrow $6,000 less in loans over the course of their college career. That is a very important relief to those families. The legislation we enacted last year also made Federal loans less costly for students by cutting the interest rates in half for undergraduates. In addition, we helped students manage debt by capping monthly loan payments at 15 percent of their income. If they go into public service, their loans would be completely forgiven as long as they stay in public service for a period of years. All of these benefits would be meaningless if students cannot obtain the loans they need to pay for college. So I thank my Senate colleagues for supporting this legislation, and I urge our colleagues in the House of Representatives, and the President, to act quickly so our Nation's college students don't become the next victims of our slumping economy. Together we can ensure that the students get the assistance they need to go to school so their dreams don't turn into nightmares, caused by the volatilities of our credit markets. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleague and friend, Senator Enzi, the ranking Republican member, and the members of our Education Committee for their help and assistance during this period of time. We have had hearings on this legislation. We also had field hearings on this subject matter and gained a good deal of information. We have worked very closely with the Administration, with Secretary Spellings. We are grateful to her for her involvement and help and assistance. We worked very closely with the House, with both Chairman Miller and Mr. McKeon, the ranking minority member as well. In the Senate, we have followed a longstanding tradition of trying to work and find common ground in education policy to benefit students. I think we have done a good job on that over a period of years. This legislation, which is basically the stopgap legislation meant to deal with the challenges we are facing in the credit markets and that students will face in the credit markets, will respond to that need. We are on alert for any additional changes that are going to be necessary as we move along. We are going to be monitoring this very closely in the days and weeks ahead, and we welcome ideas and suggestions and recommendations from students and from parents, as well as from all others, about how we can best ensure that we will be able to make sure that the a college education is going to be available to the young people in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to H.R. 493 be modified to provide that following disposition of S. 1315, the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided and controlled, as previously ordered, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 493, with the remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the information of our membership, we will be having a rollcall vote, then, at 2:15 p.m., and the time, now, will be divided between Senator Enzi and myself on the issue of the genetic nondiscrimination legislation. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the first major new civil rights bill of the new century. Five years ago this week, we celebrated a milestone that once seemed unimaginable: the completion of the Human Genome Project, which sequenced and mapped all the genes in the human body. This Friday is DNA Day, when we pay tribute to this amazing accomplishment, which was the dawn of a new era in the life sciences. Mapping the human genome has provided extraordinary insights for modern medicine, and it has opened the door to immense new opportunities to prevent, diagnosis, treat, and cure disease. Its discovery may well affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. But with this invaluable new information comes a tremendous responsibility. A person's unique genetic code contains the most personal aspects of their identity. As we begin to decipher this information, Americans have legitimate fears about how this deeply private information will be used. Surveys show that people are already declining to take medically valuable tests out of fear that they will face discrimination or invasion of their personal privacy. These fears are not unwarranted. As Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human genome, has said: Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information. The remarkable medical advances of the genetic age will be valuable only if people are not afraid to take advantage of them. The promise of this new science will be in jeopardy if our laws fail to contain adequate protections against abuse and misuse of genetic information. The bipartisan bill now before the Senate takes a substantial step to preserve the value of new genetic technology and to protect the basic rights of every American. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act recognizes that discrimination based on a person's genetic identity is just as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or be fired from a job because of genetic testing. The bill before us provides comprehensive protections. It prohibits health insurers from using a patient's genetic information to deny health insurance coverage or raise premiums. It bars employers from using genetic information to make employment-related decisions. It prohibits insurers and employers from seeking genetic information or requiring individuals to take genetic tests. It bars disclosure of genetic information by insurers or employers, and it contains effective remedies so that anyone who has suffered genetic discrimination can obtain relief. By granting these protections, the bill gives the American people the opportunity to reap the rewards of improved health care through genetics without fear of unjust use of their personal genetic makeup. This bill has been the product of a decade of dedicated effort by Members on both sides of the aisle. My sincere thanks go to Senator Snowe and Senator Enzi for helping to lead this bipartisan effort with me, and to Senator Reid, our majority leader, and the Senate leadership, for their commitment to moving this bill forward. Thanks to Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd and Senator Harkin, who also made important contributions through their leadership and expertise. I commend our House colleagues--Speaker Pelosi, Representative Slaughter, Representative Biggert, Chairman Miller, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Dingell--for their strong support, and also our former colleague, Senator Daschle, who was a leader in his term here in the Senate. It is a remarkable achievement to get this bill to the President's desk. The administration cooperated with us throughout the process, and we are grateful for its support on this important legislation. We stand today on the threshold of a major new breakthrough in medical technology. With personalized medicine that genetic science makes possible, patients can receive therapy precisely tailored to their own genetic makeup with reduced side effects and greater potency. But the effectiveness of these new technologies is undercut by people's legitimate fears and the lack of strong protections. Just this week, doctors announced important findings on the genetic factors that may contribute to Parkinson's disease. There are new discoveries in genetic variations that may confer a reduced risk of heart failure and new insights into the genetic switches that may one day control cancer. But one great barrier stands in the way of these extraordinary advances that are possible in this new field of discovery: the reluctance of patients to receive the benefit of this new science and the fear that is already keeping patients from volunteering for this research. Even the crown jewel of our Federal research enterprise, the National Institutes of Health, has been affected by this fear. The threat of genetic discrimination is so real that it is even listed on the informed consent document that the NIH provides to patients considering enrolling in the clinical trials of the new genetic medicines. This is what the chart says: We will not release any information about you or your family to your insurance company or employer without your permission. However, instances are known in which genetic information has been obtained through legal means by third parties. This may affect you or your family's ability to get health insurance and/or a job. Can you imagine individuals going out to the NIH and saying: I will volunteer in order to be a part of a research program, only to find out that their genetic information could be leaked? What happens if it is leaked? The insurance companies will say: Look, this individual has a better chance of getting breast cancer, diabetes, bipolar disorder, or a whole series of different types of cancer, so why are we going to go ahead and insure that individual? Or if we are going to insure him, we are going to charge a good deal more. Some of this genetic information is valuable to know for medical history. For example, if mothers have certain types of genetic markers, the daughters might want to find out whether they have the same kind of proclivity. Yet if they go out and have the test so that they know whether to start thinking about treating that particular health challenge, they know they will be discriminated against. They won't be able to get a job because an employer will say: Why should I hire that person when they may very well develop breast cancer, and why should I hire that person because if they develop breast cancer, then it will cost my company a good deal more to pay for that individual's health insurance. That is the reality today. That is happening today. There has been an explosion of progress in terms of genetic research. New opportunities for personalized medicine are opening, which is really going to be the pathway in the future. With personalized medicine, patients will no longer have to receive treatments that work for the average person--but may not work for them. Instead, they will receive therapies precisely tailored to their own genetic makeup, with reduced side effects and far greater potency. Individualized medicine is the way of the future. With that, there is going to be a great deal more information about an individual's health, but also the attendant challenge and problem that this information could be used to adversely impact that individual. That is what we want to avoid, and that is what we want to protect against. We know there are numerous barriers to new discoveries that Congress can do little about: the complexities of disease, the uncertainties of science, and the rarity of true inspiration. But this is one major problem which is entirely within our power to solve. We can make a difference, and we can do it today. With effective protections against the misuse of genetic information, this amazing new technology can realize its potential and bring better health care to all people throughout our world. I hope all of our colleagues will join in advancing the potential of genetic research by supporting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I want to show on the chart all of the different groups that are supporting this legislation. It gives us a very clear idea of the overwhelming support of the medical profession. Family physicians, pediatricians, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association--virtually the whole health community strongly supports this bill. The National Partnership For Women and Families and other women's groups and civil rights groups are supportive, as are the many specialized medical groups that know about genetic diseases. Genetic discrimination issues are often tied to national origin. We have the Tay-Sachs disease that affects many members of the Jewish community; sickle cell anemia, which affects many African Americans; Cooley's disease, which affects many of those who come from Mediterranean countries, and a host of others. These are genetic diseases. That is why a number of the different groups are so concerned about this, because they have seen the discrimination. I will just give ease to our colleagues. This chart shows when we have considered the legislation at other times. We considered it in 2003--the Senate did--and in 2005, and look at the overwhelming votes, Republicans and Democrats, even in the House in 2007. But we haven't been able to get the House and Senate together at the same time. So this has been going on since 2003, and we are in 2008. We have the opportunity with this legislation to get the job done, and the President has indicated he is going to sign it so we can achieve this extremely important undertaking. Let me just review some of the other statements about why this is so important. We remarked here just a few moments ago about the dangers that are out there in terms of people being concerned about the violation of their privacy based on genetic information. Is this really a problem? This is a chart which shows that 72 percent of Americans think laws are needed to protect genetic privacy. The American people are really way ahead of us in the Congress on this issue. They understand that their genetic privacy is enormously important. They have an inner sense, which is well-founded, that their genetic privacy can be abused. We have 72 percent of Americans who think we need laws. This chart shows that Americans want their genetic information kept private. Ninety-two percent of Americans think their employer should not have access to their genetic information for the reasons I have outlined. If you don't have these protections and employers are able to find out that certain individuals they are employing have a greater proclivity to develop disease, there is a very good chance they will discriminate against those individuals. That has been the case. Eighty percent of Americans think their health insurer should not have access to their genetic information. The reason for that is a very sound reason, which is they believe if the insurer has that kind of information, the cost for the health insurance, which is extraordinarily high today, will go up even further. So the American people are way ahead of the Congress in getting this. With this, Mr. President, we will be meeting their particular needs. I want to show this chart. Francis Collins, for many of us in this body--and I think for the health community--is one of the great giants in health research. He is the person who has been at the heart and soul of the research on the Human Genome Project and in understanding the power of genes. He has made an absolutely extraordinary contribution in terms of science and public policy. He is a tireless advocate and a wonderful asset for all of us here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, in strong support for this legislation. As he points out: Discrimination in health insurance, and the fear of potential discrimination, threaten both society's ability to use new genetic technologies to improve human health and the ability to conduct the very research we need to understand, treat, and prevent genetic disease. That says it all. It talks about the danger, in terms of discrimination, and also about the ability to do the research. You could be discriminated against in terms of your job or in terms of the increased costs in your health insurance, or if you were involved in research, volunteering for research--the dangers that this kind of information would be out there and could be used against you. Mr. President, I remember--and it wasn't that long ago--when we listened to Dr. Collins. He was talking about the progress made in genetic research. They were talking about markers at that time. I think some of the earliest progress was made in terms of developing information about breast cancer and who had the proclivity to develop breast cancer. That was truly remarkable. Since that time--and it has only been a few years--we have seen that expand to prostate cancer, diabetes, bipolar, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and Parkinson's. Think of that. That list is growing virtually every day. We are eventually going to be getting health care systems that will say: If you have these kinds of diseases, we have the particular targeted kind of personalized medicine to help you either recover or to protect you in terms of the future. That is going to happen, Mr. President. It is going to happen sooner rather than later. This gives you an idea of how rapidly this kind of research is moving along and how this kind of research, in the hands of top-rated physicians and researchers who know how to treat these illnesses and sicknesses, will make a difference in terms of improving the quality of health care on the one hand. It is so dramatic, as is the danger of abuse by unscrupulous employers or health insurance companies on the other hand. That is what this legislation is really all about. That is why this is so important and why it has strong bipartisan support. In many respects, this is going to be one of the most important pieces of health legislation we pass in this Congress. We have other very important health proposals, but this will make an enormous difference in terms of the march for progress for good health care. We look forward to a strong vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair let me know when I have 30 seconds left? I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brownback for reminding us about our bill dealing with Down's syndrome. It is a very worthwhile effort and one that is enormously compelling. I give him the assurance we want to work very closely with him. We are trying to get a counterpart in the House of Representatives and trying to get this done during this session. We thank him for his strong leadership in that area. He has been working on it for a long time. Mr. President, we are in a new era of the life sciences, and the truth of that statement can be seen in fields from medical imaging, to new biologic drugs and even to the use of DNA technology to improve our environment and reduce greenhouse gasses. But in no area of research is the promise greater than in the field of personalized medicine. With personalized medicine, patients will no longer have to receive treatments that work for the average person--but may not work for them. Instead, they will receive therapies precisely tailored to their own genetic makeup, with reduced side effects and far greater potency. The cost of developing new drugs is likely to be significantly reduced. No longer will a potentially promising drug be consigned to a dusty warehouse because it fails to work well on average, if it has the potential to treat patients with a particular genetic condition. A main barrier in the way of such extraordinary advances is the reluctance of patients to seek the benefits of this new science and the fear volunteering for this research. Three stories recounted to the advisory committee on genetic issues at the Department of Health and Human Services make the point. Tonia Phillips has the BRCA-1 mutation. He told the committee that based on her genetic risk for ovarian and breast cancer, she elected to have a hysterectomy and a prophylactic double mastectomy. Ms. Phillips works for a small company of just four people. After her surgery, the health insurance premium for the company increased by $13,000 year. Her employers asked her to switch to her husband's health insurance policy, and even offered to increase her salary if she would switch policies. She refused. The company then adopted a policy requiring employees to pay half their insurance costs. If GINA is passed, changing the terms of employment based on genetic information would be illegal. Paula Funk, a 33-year-old mother from Arkansas, told the committee that of her 24 female relatives, 13 have developed breast cancer. She decided to pay out-of-pocket and be tested for BRCA-1 anonymously. She tested positive, had a prophylactic double mastectomy, and plans to have her ovaries removed in the near future. Paula and her husband opened their own computer business but were prepared to abandon their plans unless they could get a group health plan for their two-person company, because they knew she wouldn't qualify for individual insurance based on her BRCA-1 status. Her concern now is for protection against discrimination for her two young daughters, Audrey and Anna, who will someday have to make the difficult decision about being tested. If GINA is passed, Audrey and Anna would not have to fear losing their health insurance based on a BRCA-1 test result. Judith Berman Carlyle, a 48-year-old woman with a family history of ovarian cancer, was afraid that she wouldn't be able to obtain health insurance if she tested positive for the variant of the BRCA-1 gene that is related to breast and ovarian cancer. Instead of being tested, she decided to have prophylactic surgery to remove her ovaries, believing that the surgery would be less likely to cause her to be dropped by her insurer. Later, having obtained health insurance, Judith decided to be tested for BRCA-1 before having a prophylactic double mastectomy. Her test was negative. If she had known this information, she might not have chosen to have her ovaries removed and might have opted for increased screening measures. Earlier this year, the Pulitzer Prize was awarded for an extraordinary series of articles on the promise and challenge of this new science. One article dealt with the fears of discrimination faced by those who undergo genetic tests, and the measures they take to protect themselves. Those articles included new revelations about the harm caused by the fear of discrimination. Victoria Grove, of Woodbury, MN, told how she concealed crucial information about her genetic tests from her doctor, for fear it would be used to deny coverage. As a result, she did not receive proper treatment for her lung condition. Kathy Anderson's parents refused to let her be tested for a genetic condition that affects blood clotting, for fear of discrimination. When Kathy was prescribed a common birth control pill, she developed massive clots--a life threatening illness that could have been avoided if she had had the genetic tests. For Judith Carlisle, the consequences of not taking a genetic test were tragic. She has a strong family history of breast cancer, but was afraid that a genetic test to detect a particular gene mutation would provide proof to insurance companies and employers that she was a health risk. So she refused to take the test. Still, she worried about the risks of cancer, so she had a hysterectomy to prevent that risk. Only later, when she took the gene test, did she discover that her fears had been misplaced. The test showed that she had no elevated risk of cancer. We've also heard other stories in the years of debate on this bill. Phil Hardt is a grandfather in Arizona with hemophilia B, a bleeding disorder, and Huntington's disease. His human resources manager told him to withhold that information from his employer, or he would never be promoted or trained. In addition, his grandchildren would be denied health insurance because the genes they might have inherited. Rebecca Fisher is a mother and early onset breast cancer survivor with a family history of the disease. She recounted how her employer, a small, self-insured community hospital, was more concerned that the cost of her bone marrow transplantation and other health care had exceeded the cap for that year, than with her health or productivity as a worker. Thousands of other patients who refuse to receive the benefits of this new technology have similar stories. The time for delay is over-- and I urge my colleagues to pass this needed legislation. I again acknowledge the great work and effort of my colleague and friend, Senator Enzi, the work he and his strong staff have provided. We know we would not be here without his strong commitment to this legislation. This legislation was stuck for a time in the legislative cauldron of good works, but it was never lost. Through his efforts we had the good opportunity to work out some of the final differences and we have the opportunity to get it passed today. I am very grateful to him. Senator Snowe has been a long-time leader in this. Her leadership has been referred to and all of us who have been interested in this thank her for her long-time dedication and commitment to it. I want to mention some of the other people and say a final word. Dr. Collins, who has been the leader of the Human Genome Project, has been such a strong voice in passing this legislation; Sharon Terry, the Director of the Genetic Alliance; Kathy Hudson, who works at NIH and gave us excellent technical assistance; Representative Louise Slaughter, who has a long-time commitment to this program--I thank her and Michelle Adams, who has worked with her; Representative Judy Biggert and her staffer Brian Peterson; Shana Christrup, Keith Flanagan, and Ilyse Schuman--all have worked with Senator Enzi, and I thank them personally for their strong help working with me and with our staff; Kim Monk and David Thompson with Senator Gregg, who was a strong supporter of this bill when he chaired the HELP Committee--I thank him; Pete Goodloe from Congressman Dingell, Michelle Varnhagan from Congressman Miller; Cybele Bjorklund, who worked with Charlie Rangel and previously worked with us on our staff when we were fortunate to have her efforts here in the Senate; Kate Leone and Jennifer Duck had worked for Senator Daschle--they are not now here, but we acknowledge their work at an important time in this bill's history; Stephanie Carlton for Senator Coburn staff, her efforts are appreciated as well. On my staff I thank Portia Wu, Lauren McFerran, Holly Fechner, Michael Myers, Laura Kwinn, and especially David Bowen. All have been invaluable. This bill opens a new frontier in medicine, in which can read the genetic makeup of patients to stop diseases before they ever happen. This legislation opens the door to modern medical progress for millions and millions of Americans. It means that people whose genetic profiles put them at risk of cancer and other serious conditions can get tested and seek treatment without fear of losing their privacy, their jobs, or their health insurance. It is the first civil rights bill of the new century of the life sciences. This is the era of life science, with extraordinary possibility over these next years. With the passage of this legislation we take a quantum leap forward in preserving the values of new genetic technology and protecting the basic rights of every American. We will ensure that our laws reflect the advances we are making each and every day in medical science. The promise of new science will be in jeopardy if our laws fail to maintain adequate protections against abuse and misuse of private genetic information. It was a hard-fought battle to get here. This bill has been the product of a decade of dedicated efforts by Members of both sides of the aisle. I am honored to work with many of my colleagues, particularly Senator Enzi, Senator Snowe, and Congresswoman Slaughter on this bill. I hope it will get overwhelming support. Amendment No. 4573 (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute) Mr. President, I call up the Snowe-Kennedy-Enzi substitute, which is at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield any time that remains.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support a resolution by Senator Menendez supporting National Child Care Worthy Wage Day. I hope that it will shine a brighter light on the many challenges facing the early childhood education and care community and the importance of attracting and retaining excellent childcare workers. Across the country today, nearly two-thirds of children under the age of 5 are in some form of nonparental care while their parents are at work and more and more research emphasizes that learning begins at birth. The quality of early care that children receive has a profound impact on the rest of their lives. Children in high-quality early care and education programs are 30 percent more likely to graduate from high school and twice as likely to go to college. They are also 40 percent less likely to be held back a grade or need expensive special education programs. Childcare is particularly effective for at-risk students. Important studies, including the research of both Nobel Laureate Economist James Heckman and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, show that quality early care and education can break the cycle of poverty and crime. Heckman's survey of at-risk boys who receive quality early education found that less than 10 percent of boys who participate will be convicted of a crime and less than 2 percent will end up on welfare--rates significantly lower than for those who do not receive such support. The key to assuring quality early childhood education and care for our youth is access to a highly qualified educator or caregiver. Despite the obvious importance of their work, however, child care providers are underpaid, unsupported and undervalued. These providers are responsible for the social, emotional and mental development of the children in their care. They teach skills that young children need in order to be ready to read and learn when they go to school. They help young children learn about the world around them and how to interact with others. Yet the average salary of an early care and education workers is $18,820, and less than a third of them have health insurance. In Massachusetts, those numbers are only marginally better--childcare workers are paid a little over $10 an hour and earn $22,760 annually. By comparison, registered nurses make $37,511 a year, police officers earn $37,078, and K through 12 teachers earn $32,306. The story of Melvina Vandross is typical. She has spent the last 20 years caring for children in poor families in New York City. Due to the lack of sufficient Federal subsidies, she makes less than $19,000 a year in one of the world's most expensive cities. She has no health insurance, and could not afford to get her son the tutor he needed to succeed in school. Her commitment to the futures of some of the Nation's least fortunate children has made it nearly impossible for her to provide for herself and her family. Melvina's story is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that Head Start teachers in Montana qualify for Habitat for Humanity homes. The men and women who shape the lives of our Nation's children deserve fair wages and benefits. The sacrifice we are asking of them for their indispensible work is too high. Inadequate wages and benefits have made it difficult to recruit and retain qualified childcare providers. Turnover rates are going through the roof. Almost 30 percent of child care providers leave the field every year. Neither their wages nor their turnaround rates are acceptable. If we want our children to be cared for by qualified providers who have a good education and sound understanding of child development, we must see that they are fairly compensated and supported, commensurate with their contribution to our national, civic and economic well-being. They are indeed deserving of a worthy wage for their worthy work that is so important for the Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. We owe it to the Nation's childcare providers, and we owe it to our Nation's children and their families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that Pam Bradley, a fellow in Senator Dodd's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of consideration of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on the basic principle of fairness, justice, and equality. Over the years, a continuing march of progress has brought these shared ideals to ever more Americans. The ``Whites only'' signs that were a stain on America are a thing of the past. We have opened the door of opportunity to African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans. Glass ceilings that limited the opportunities of women and persons with disabilities are shattered. We have improved protections for persons of faith who suffer discrimination and intolerance because of their beliefs. Opportunities for older workers are greater now than perhaps at any previous time in our history. The march of progress represents America at its best. It has brought us ever closer to the ideal of Dr. Martin Luther King that Americans will one day be measured not by the color of their skin, their gender, their national origin, their race, their religion, or their disability, but by the content of their character. The Senate has been an important part of the progress in guaranteeing fairness and opportunity. We passed strong bipartisan laws to protect basic civil rights, and we must not turn back the clock again. Time and again, the Senate has gone on record in favor of fairness and against discrimination, and we have done so by overwhelming majorities. We will have an opportunity in a few moments to do so again. This chart shows the record of the Senate in ensuring pay equity for those whose skin is a different color, on the basis of age, disability, gender, religion, or national origin. Here it is: The Equal Pay Act was passed on a voice vote. An overwhelming majority in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, said equal pay, equal work should be the law of the land. It was passed in 1963. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII, equal pay for equal work, passed 73 to 27. Age discrimination that says you will not discriminate on the basis of age passed the Senate under President Johnson by a voice vote. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided the same kind of protections for disabled individuals, individuals who have some disability but are otherwise qualified to do work. You cannot discriminate against them. That was passed on a voice vote under President Nixon. And this was repeated in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Look at the Presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush. And now in the Senate our Republican friends want to say: Oh, no, we are going to permit discrimination against women because they did not have adequate notice that the discrimination was taking place because the employer did not give them that notice when they gave them a paycheck that was unequal to their male counterparts. That was a 5-to-4 decision. We have an opportunity to go back on the right track that Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congress led us down. Let's restore the fairness, the equity, the decency, and the humanity this Senate of the United States has gone on record with regard to equal pay for women, disabled, and the elderly in our society. Let's do that. We have a chance to do so in just 45 minutes. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds. We are attempting to restore the law prior to the Supreme Court decision. That is all we are trying to do. The law before the Supreme Court's decision is that when the paycheck reflects discrimination the time to file starts. Here is a chart. All light green and dark green. That was the law of the land. That was the law of the land, Mr. President. That is what our bill does. Let's not confuse the facts. We want to go back to what the law of the land was--that and only that. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.