Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, be recognized for 15 minutes, and then after Senator Conrad, I be recognized, and after I am recognized, the Senator from Wyoming be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the business now before the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Reid substitute effectively is the increase in the minimum wage; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from West Virginia and to the Senator from North Dakota as well as the Senator from New Hampshire, this has been an enormously important 2 hours in terms of the discussion and debate about the proposal of the Senator from New Hampshire. Over this period of time I am very hopeful our colleagues paid close attention to this debate because it is an extremely important issue that stretches the whole question of constitutional powers, the relationship between the Executive and the Congress. We have had these individuals speak to this issue. They are knowledgeable, thoughtful colleagues who have spent a good deal of time on this matter. It is of enormous consequence, the outcome of this proposal. I am enormously appreciative particularly of Senator Byrd and Senator Conrad for the excellence of their presentation and for the extremely convincing arguments they have made. The power of their arguments I find enormously compelling, and I hope our colleagues will consider it favorably as they make up their minds when we vote on this issue on Wednesday, the day after tomorrow. This has been an extremely important debate. I am grateful to those who have participated in it. I thank, in particular, again, the Senator from West Virginia who is constant in his commitment and protection of the Constitution and the protection of the Senate as our Founding Fathers saw it and believed in it and chartered it in the Constitution. We are extremely grateful for this debate and discussion. I personally thank the Senator from West Virginia for bringing such clarity and recall of historical importance to this debate and discussion over the period of the last 2 hours. We are very grateful to him as we always are when he talks about the role of the Senate and also about the division of powers under the Constitution. We thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we now bring the focus and attention of the Senate on an issue of enormous importance and consequence to working families in this country. Americans understand the issues of fairness. They understand the importance of work. Americans have believed, for a long period of time, if you work hard and play by the rules, you should not have to live in poverty in the United States of America. They have supported, Republicans and Democrats alike, a fair minimum wage over the period of the last 70 years. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported that concept, which is basic and fundamental in terms of a free society and a free economy. That is the issue we are going to address today because over the period of these last 10 years, we have had intense opposition from Republican leadership over an increase in the minimum wage. Now, with the change of leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, our Democratic colleagues, with Speaker Pelosi, and now with Senator Reid, have put this issue of fairness before the Senate as a priority issue. We welcome the opportunity to address it. It is one that is easily comprehensible, and it should not take a long time to debate. There are still those in this body who oppose it, and we expect to have amendments to try to undermine this very simple and fundamental concept of saying to those individuals who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder: If you work hard and play by the rules 40 hours a week in the United States of America, you ought to at least be able to have a wage so you are not going to continue to live in poverty. We are also trying to say, if you have a minimum wage job, that should not condemn you to a life in poverty. Now, let me go back over what this minimum wage is all about and give some sense about who is affected by the minimum wage and what has happened to it in recent times. This chart reflects where the minimum wage has been in terms of its purchasing power from 1960 to 2005. If you look at where we are, as of 2005, you see a steady decrease in the purchasing power of the minimum wage worker, who today earns $5.15 an hour. If you look back, again, in terms of the purchasing power of the minimum wage worker in the 1960s, it was about $7 an hour. It was close to $9 in 1967, 1968. And then it went along, and still the purchasing power was about $7 an hour. Then we saw the gradual decline through the 1980s. In spite of our efforts to get President Reagan to increase the minimum wage, we were unable to do so. Then, we had two times where we got a very modest increase in the minimum wage, in 1991 and then again in 1997. But we have not seen an increase in the minimum wage in the last 10 years, and we have seen the purchasing power of the minimum wage worker reach perhaps its all-time low at the present time. This red line on the chart indicates, with the passage of the increase in the minimum wage over a 2-year period, bringing it to $7.25, it would still be below the purchasing power of the 20 years between 1960 and 1980, but at least it would give increasing hope to millions of Americans who are working at the minimum wage. This issue of the minimum wage is a women's issue because so many of those who receive the minimum wage are women. So it is a women's issue. So many of those women have children, so it is a children's issue and a women's issue. It is a family issue because how that family is going to live, depending upon where the minimum wage is, how that child is going to be brought up, is going to depend on what that parent is able to provide for that child. So it is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue because so many of those who enter the job market, who enter it at the minimum wage, are men and women of color. So it is a civil rights issue, a children's issue, a women's issue, and, most of all, a fairness issue. That is something the American people can understand. This chart shows what has happened to productivity in the United States. Generally speaking, if you look back over the years of 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, we see that the minimum wage related to the increase in productivity. As workers became more productive, an important part of that increased productivity was passed on to the workers themselves, as it should be in a fair society. But what we see at the present time is that the productivity has increased 165 percent over the period of the last 45 years, and the minimum wage, in terms of the total purchasing power over that period of time, has actually gone down. The minimum wage has not only not kept up with productivity, it has even fallen further behind. Productivity was always the issue to be judged when we had debates on the minimum wage years ago that asked: What has happened to the increase in productivity? We can justify an increase in the minimum wage in terms of wages if they produce more. We have seen a dramatic increase in productivity but virtually no increase and a decline in the purchasing power of minimum wage workers. Here we see the real minimum wage decline: Twenty percent in the 10 years of Republican opposition. The value of it in 1997, $13,448; in 2007, $10,700--$6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. And this chart shows the Federal poverty level in this country in 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, all the way through 1980. For 20 years, this country said: OK, we will have a minimum wage, and we will keep it at least at the poverty level so individuals will not fall behind. If they work hard and play by the rules, they at least will not have to live in poverty. As this chart shows, we see now it is $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three who is earning the minimum wage. Since 1980, we have only had two increases in the minimum wage. Now, in the last 10 years, we have had none. That is the issue. Having to take the time to try to go through this and explain why we need an increase in the minimum wage, and why we are going to hear from the other side, those who are in opposition to it, is extraordinary to me with these figures. Look what has happened. If we try to measure poverty in the Bush economy between 2000 and 2005, there are 5.4 million more people living in poverty today than in the year 2000, largely because of the failure of the Congress to increase the minimum wage. These are the figures. These are the statistics. They do not talk about real lives, how these people struggle. They do not tell about the lost dreams of these families. They do not talk about the shattered conditions of the children who are in these kinds of conditions. There are 5\1/2\ million new people who have gone into poverty in the United States of America, the strongest economy in the world, basically as a result of the failure to increase the minimum wage. Look what has happened to children. There are 1.3 million more children in poverty today than we had 5 years ago--1.3 million more children in poverty today--primarily because of the failure to increase the minimum wage. Well, we have to ask ourselves: Where are we as a country and a nation in terms of child poverty? Look at this chart. Of all the industrialized nations of the world, the United States has the highest child poverty rate--the highest poverty rate for children in the industrialized world. There are the figures. There are the statistics. It is not even close, and it is going up. While we are having the extraordinary profits on Wall Street, what is happening on Main Street? What is happening in the small communities, small farms, small towns, and in the major urban areas of this country? What is happening to the children of this Nation? There is not a person in this Chamber who, in the last 5 days, has not made a speech about how our future is about our children. Everyone goes out and talks about the importance of our children in our democracy and our country. Look what is happening. They talk about it and refuse to do something that can make a big difference. That is child poverty. When you look at child poverty and look over the figures and statistics, there is nothing terribly surprising about this, with a national average of 17.6 percent. We see who takes the major burdens, the Latinos and African Americans, those women and children of color. We are trying to talk about one country and one society, one history, and, nonetheless, we see the growing disparity in the increased number of families in poverty, the disparity with the increased number of children in poverty, and the disparity between the various communities in our Nation. Is this what this country wants? We are not saying that the total answer is the increase in the minimum wage, but it makes a major difference. And we can show you, and will show you, why that is so. We see the figures now in terms of what has happened in terms of statistics. But what does this mean on some of the issues that relate to the conditions of our fellow citizens? Let's take the issue of hunger. Not many people are talking about the challenges and the problems of hunger in our society. This is from the USDA, household food security in the United States, pointing out the increasing number of families who are on the verge of hunger in our economy has increased by 2 million. In the industrialized world, we are No. 1 in child poverty, and we see an increasing number of our fellow citizens in terms of hunger. How does that impact in terms of children? Mr. President, 12.4 million children are hungry now every single day in the United States of America, and that number is growing. We can look at the number of children who go to bed hungry at night. This quote is from Lisa Hamler- Fugitt, who is the executive director of the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks: Thirty-five percent of the people that we serve are children. Thirty-five percent are children. I see these children, and I think what are we teaching them? That in America, you can work 40 hours a week and still not earn enough to buy food? That is what is happening. That is what is happening in the United States of America now, today. And we have to spend hours in this body, after we have had the adequate pay increases of $30,000 for Members of Congress in the last 10 years, and try to convince people to go to a $7.25 minimum wage? And we are going to hear opposition to this? This is what is happening out across this country. So we know what is out there in terms of hunger, how this reflects itself, the fact that they are not getting the adequate income, how it impacts particular children in our society. This reflects, at no surprise to anyone--this is the National Low Income Housing Coalition--about how many hours you have to work at the minimum wage to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment. This is for an average family of three. These are the hours you have to work in 1 week. You would have to work 229 hours a week in my State of Massachusetts at the minimum wage to be able to afford it; 140 hours a week down in Louisiana. Across the country, out in the Southwest, we are looking at New Mexico; Arizona, 149 hours a week; Missouri, 119 hours a week; even Wyoming, 112 hours a week. This illustrates pressures on these families, their difficulty to be able to provide food for their children, let alone providing for their housing. The increase, this is how it reflects itself. We propose an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25. This is what it means. It means 2 years of childcare for a minimum wage family. It means full tuition at a community college. This is what it could mean to a family. It means a year and a half of heat and electricity. We have seen the reductions in the fuel assistance programs in the recent times, which has been devastating in my part of the country. It means more than a year of groceries. It means more than 8 months of rent. This might not make a big deal of difference to a lot of people, but it makes an enormous amount of difference to these families who are earning the minimum wage. This is how it reflects itself: a year of groceries, 8 months of rent, a year and a half of heat and electricity, tuition at a community college--an opportunity for hope for some of these individuals--and also 2 years of childcare, to help with the problems in terms of childcare, the difficulty that these families have in trying to work for the minimum wage and have someone who is going to care and look out for their children. There are heartrending stories to that effect. This chart reiterates the fact that the great majority, 60, 61 percent, of those working are women, so it is primarily a women's issue. Great numbers of those women have children, so this is a special issue for women. Here we show that about 1.4 million single parents, most of whom are women, would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Some will say, on the one hand, it doesn't affect all that many people. Then why not have an increase in the minimum wage? It doesn't, in terms of the percentage increase in the total payroll of this country, it is infinitesimal, an increase in the minimum wage. I will come to that in a minute. But don't tell me it doesn't make a great deal of difference to the over 1 million single parents, most of whom are women, who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. This tells the story of Diana, a single mother of three from Buffalo, who works for a childcare center, making the minimum wage. She has to rely on food stamps and Medicaid to provide for her family. Increasing the minimum wage will allow her to ``decrease her reliance on government subsidies and . . . pursue her dream of self-sufficiency and a better life for herself and her family.'' It is interesting, the fact that if we do not increase the minimum wage, we are effectively subsidizing many businesses. Because these families are eligible for food stamps or maybe some could get some fuel assistance, other kinds of support services, who do you think is paying for those programs? Working families. So you get a decent minimum wage out there, and it reduces the pressure on those programs. That means less pressure on our working families who are going to have to pay in. The increase in the minimum wage will benefit more than 6 million children whose parents will receive a raise. Six million children in this country will benefit because of the increase in the minimum wage. It is a children's issue, a women's issue. This is what this is about. What happens when children are living a better quality life? Look at this chart: Better attendance, concentration and performance at school, higher test scores and graduation rates. We are going to be debating No Child Left Behind. We are going to be wondering how we can make a difference in terms of children in our schools. There are a number of things that can make a difference to the children: a qualified teacher, classrooms where children can learn, supplementary services, parental involvement. A number of things can make a difference to the children. But one thing we know for sure: If the children can't see the blackboard, if they need glasses, or they can't hear a teacher because they need some kind of help, we tried to do this with the CHIP program to help them. In the CHIP program, it is not required, but a lot of States do provide those. But if the child is going to be hungry, the child is not going to pay attention. We have all kinds of examples for that. We will mention that at another time. But 6.4 million children will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage: better concentration, performance at school, higher test scores, higher graduation rates, stronger immune systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital visits, fewer run-ins in the juvenile justice system--investing in the children. Again, 6.4 million will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, and this will be part of the benefits that will come from those increases. We have seen a higher minimum wage improves children's futures. For families living in poverty, a $400 increase in family income will dramatically increase children's test scores. This is from the Institute of Research on Poverty, on reading and math. This shows the difference in terms of the test scores. Children who are going to be fed, children who are going to have the kind of support do better in schools. We mentioned earlier the problems of poverty falling disproportionately on those individuals of color. This chart shows that individuals of color benefit from the higher minimum wage. People of color make up 36 percent of all minimum wage workers. If we are able to get an increase in that, it will obviously benefit them. We talked about children for a time and the impact it has on children. I will spend a few minutes talking about the number of elderly struggling with the problems of poverty. The number of elderly struggling will increase dramatically over the next several years. The best estimate--and this is by the Nation's poor, near-poor older population; it is a very important and significant study--shows the number of elderly who are going to live in poverty, increasing some 41 percent over the period of the next years. And we can understand that because we see the decline in wages according to age. This chart shows declining wages for men as well as women, all set in motion, again, by the issue about where they are going to start off on the minimum wage. So we are going to have significant increases. This is the RAND study in terms of our seniors who are going to be living in poverty. They will certainly benefit from this. Here is an elderly worker, Peggy Fraley, a 60-year-old grandmother from Wichita, KS, who works as a receptionist for $5.15 an hour. She lives with her daughter, who also earns the minimum wage, and her five grandchildren. She says: We can barely make it, but we have each other. That is richer sometimes. This has a real impact. We have been talking a lot about statistics, but it affects people in the most basic and fundamental ways. Over the period of these recent years where the Senate has failed to act, a number of States have moved ahead. You will see on this chart the red States are the States where they have a minimum wage which is higher than the Federal. These are red States as well as the blue States, with the minimum wage at or below the Federal level. This is what has happened in the country over the period of the last 10 years. Now let's see, we have pointed out what has been happening in terms of children, people living in poverty, children in poverty. High minimum wage States, meaning those we have just mentioned here that have had some increase in the minimum wage, have lower poverty rates. That should not be surprising. It is all true. You can take it right across the line. The States that have increased their minimum wage are all below the national average in terms of the poverty rate, 12.7 percent. So this has a real impact. And look at what it has with regard to child poverty rates. Remember, I mentioned we are the No. 1 industrial society with the number of children living in poverty. Look what happens in the States where we have actually increased the minimum wage. Just about every one of those is below the national average on child poverty. Increasing the minimum wage has a real impact in terms of child poverty in this country. I will show what has happened in some other countries. I will show what has happened in other States. Let's see what happened in other countries. We always hear, well, if we do this, it is going to be a disaster to the economy and, therefore, we can't afford to have that because we are going to lose jobs or we will slow down the economy. We are going to throw those people out of work we are trying to help. We are going to hurt their community and we will hurt their families. Right? Wrong. Let's look at the two countries which have raised their minimum wage the most over the last 5 years. That is Great Britain and Ireland. What are the two countries in Europe that have the best economies? Britain and Ireland. What are their minimum wages? Great Britain is now $10.57 an hour. Ireland is $10.80 an hour. And what has been the result? They have the strongest economies and the second strongest economy, and Britain has brought 2 million children out of poverty. Ireland has reduced its number of children who are in poverty by 40 percent. Look at this: Child poverty, dramatic increase in the minimum wage. They have a strong economy and a dramatic reduction in child poverty. And here we have an increase in child poverty, keeping the minimum wage. Look at what has happened in terms of Great Britain. They have taken 2 million children out of poverty, and we have seen 1.4 million children go into poverty. Five years ago, Great Britain had the highest number of children in poverty of any of the European countries. And Tony Blair, to his credit, said: We are going to do something about it, and we are going to effectively eliminate child poverty in this decade. They are well on the way to doing so, demonstrating what we have said. That is, you can make a difference with regard to children. You can make a difference in terms of the issues of poverty by increasing the minimum wage. Now let me take the States. What has happened to the States? You can say that is interesting, what has happened in those countries. But let's take a look at the States that have had an increase in the minimum wage. States with higher minimum wages create more jobs. This is from the Fiscal Policy Institute, March 30, 2006, overall employment growth from January 1998 to January 2006. In the 11 States with a minimum wage higher than $5.15, it has been 9.7 percent. In States with the minimum wage at $5.15, it is 7.5 percent. I thought if you raised the minimum wage, it was supposed to go down. You weren't supposed to grow as fast. And you weren't supposed to have increasing employment. But quite clearly, this isn't the fact. Let's take the States where they are creating businesses. People say, if you raise the minimum wage, we are going to put a lot of businesses out of work. Is that right? No, that is wrong, too. Here are the 10 States with a minimum wage higher than $5.15. States with higher minimum wages create more small businesses. Overall growth in the number of small businesses, 1998 to 2003, 5.4 percent where you get a minimum wage higher than $5.15, and 4.2 percent where they have had $5.15--more employment, more growth of businesses. This is the result, if you look in other areas as well. This is States with higher minimum wages on retail jobs. In States with a minimum wage higher than $5.15 an hour, the employment growth is 10 percent in retail jobs; 3.7 percent where the minimum wage is $5.15. We don't expect the NFIB to support this proposal. But what we do find is that many employers and small businesses do. Malcolm Davis supports raising the minimum wage. This was in the News Observer, a newspaper. He is a small business owner, is proud to say: My lowest paid employee makes $8 per hour. With only 11 employees, things are tight, to say the least. If I can find a way to be fair with my employees in rural eastern North Carolina, why can't our government? Try driving to work and raising a family on the minimum wage. This is more typical than not, Mr. President. Look at this. This is a Gallup Poll of May 9, 2006. Eighty-six percent of small business owners say the minimum wage doesn't affect their businesses. Question: How does the minimum wage affect your business? Eighty-six percent say no effect. Gallup Poll, 2006. Positive effect, 5; negative effect, 8 percent. Let's look at what has been happening in our country over the period of the recent years in terms of the tax incentives. I think we ought to have an increase. I am going to vote to increase the minimum wage without providing additional kinds of tax incentives. All this proposal does basically is recover the purchasing power we had 10 years ago. There is no reason--we have seen countries that have raised the minimum wage doing very well--why we should add more tax breaks and increase the deficit. Businesses receive billions of dollars while minimum wage workers receive nothing. This chart is from Citizens for Tax Justice. That is over the last 10 years. There has been $276 billion in tax incentives for corporations-- small businesses, $36 billion--and we have had no raise for the minimum wage workers. We are still being asked now to do more when we have seen these kinds of tax breaks for corporations and businesses. I don't think it is necessary that we provide the additional tax breaks. Here we have seen productivity and profits skyrocket while the minimum wage plummets. This comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Profits are up over 45 percent; productivity, total 29 percent; and the minimum wage and output per hours are down 20 percent. So it gives you an idea about what has been happening out in the economy just generally. Mr. President, I think this is, above all, a moral issue. The members of our great faiths have all spoken clearly about this issue. Here is the quote from Justice Roll, January 2007: More than 1,000 Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith leaders say minimum wage workers deserve a prompt, clean minimum wage increase with no strings attached. They make an excellent statement, and it is a convincing one. Mr. President, these give you at least some idea of what is at issue. We have tried over the few minutes that we have had to point out where the trend lines are, to show the statistics that show that an increase in the minimum wage is morally correct. It will strengthen our economy, and it will make a difference to children and to women and make a difference to men and women of color. It is basically a fairness issue. It will strengthen our economy. It is the right thing to do. It is long overdue. I thank our Democratic leaders, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, for giving it the high priority it deserves. We ought to get about the business of getting this legislation enacted, and enacted speedily, for those individuals who are out there day in and day out, men and women of dignity and men and women of pride, who take a sense of pride in the job they do, even though the jobs are very menial. Maybe it is a teacher's aide or someone looking out after the elderly in elderly homes or someone cleaning out the buildings of American commerce. They are men and women of dignity, and they take pride in the jobs that they do. America has said it values work, and America says it values individuals who want to work hard and play by the rules. We are calling upon this Senate now to say these working families have waited long enough. Those individuals who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year in this Nation of ours should not have to be condemned to living a life in poverty. That is the issue. Does work pay? Do we recognize our fellow citizens and say that we are going to respect them and we want to be one country with one history and one destiny, one Nation? Let's pass the increase in the minimum wage. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, for all of his good work. There are a great many issues on which we agree; there are some on which we differ. I always value his insight on any of these issues and, needless to say, we enjoy working together. I thank him for all of his cooperation on this issue, as on many other issues. We give assurance to our friends in the Senate that we are going to get a lot of good work done for the people of this country in this session. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to share with my colleagues a recent speech by Michael Kaiser, the president of the Kennedy Center. Mr. Kaiser is an impressive and highly respected national leader in arts policy and advocacy. Last month, he addressed the National Press Club and spoke about the importance of cultural development and exchange. In addition to his role as the president of our national performing arts center, Mr. Kaiser serves as a cultural ambassador for the administration. He has traveled around the globe to assist cultural organizations in many countries--including Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Cultural diplomacy is an effective part of our Nation's outreach to other countries and cultures, and Mr. Kaiser's role is an impressive part of that effort. He is an articulate and visionary leader for the Kennedy Center and a major national resource. I believe his address to the National Press Club last month will be of interest to all of us, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007. It is an honor to join Senator Snowe, Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Gregg, and other members of our committee in support of this needed legislation. I especially commend Senator Snowe for her leadership in this effort to establish protections for the public against genetic discrimination. It is now over a decade since Senator Snowe first introduced legislation on the issue. It passed the Senate 98-0 in the last Congress, and I am very hopeful we can work with our colleagues in the House and enact it into law, so that our people will finally have the protections they need against the misuse of genetic information. In this century of the life sciences, much of what we learn through biomedical research is being translated into new treatments and cures, and nowhere is the explosion of scientific progress more apparent than in the field of genetics. Four years after the remarkable achievement of discovering the sequence of the human genome, clinical testing is now possible for over a thousand genetic diseases. It has led to rapid growth in the field of personalized medicine, in which patients' treatment and care is individualized according to their genetic makeup. In the absence of federal protections, however, patients fear that undergoing genetic tests may lead to disqualification from future insurance coverage, or that an employer will fire them or deny a promotion based on the results of a genetic test. The consequence is that many Americans are choosing not to be tested, and are declining to participate in clinical trials so important for the development of new treatments. Discrimination based on genetics is just as wrong as discrimination based on race or gender. Our bill provides specific protections for citizens against genetic discrimination. It prohibits health insurers from picking and choosing their customers based on genetics. Employers cannot fire or refuse to hire persons because of their genetic characteristics. It enables Americans to benefit from better health care through the use of genetic information, without the fear that it will be misused against them. It is difficult to imagine information more personal or more private than a person's genetic makeup. It should not be shared by insurers or employers, or be used in making decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to make the best diagnostic and treatment decisions they can. In the near future, genetic tests will become even cheaper and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease. If Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be misused. If Congress fails to make sure that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we may well squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the nation's health. The bill that we are considering today has been unanimously approved by the full Senate in the past two Congresses. We passed it 95-0 in the 108th Congress, and 98-0 in the 109th Congress. It had over 240 cosponsors in the House in both Congresses, but the leadership refused to bring it to a vote. As President Bush himself has said, ``Genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' We are closer than ever to enactment. I urge the Senate to approve the bill, and this time, I think we will finally see it become law.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007. It's long past time for Congress to take action to address the crisis in college affordability. The cost of college has more than tripled in the last 20 years. Today, the average cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is almost $13,000. As a result, students and families are pinching pennies more than ever to pay for higher education. Increasingly, more and more students are finding it's just not possible. Every year, 400,000 students who are qualified to attend a 4-year college find themselves shut out because of cost factors. At a time when 6 out of 10 jobs require some form of post-secondary training, this is completely unacceptable. When qualified students are blocked from the college gates because of cost, they're also blocked from their ticket to the American Dream. It's a situation that's putting our prosperity and economic security as a country at risk. But the crisis on college affordability is not just limited to those most in need. Every low and middle income family in America is affected by it. Today, the average student in the U.S. leaves college saddled with more than $17,000 in federal student loans on graduation day. At private universities, the level of student loan debt has increased 108 percent over the past decade. And at public universities, student loan debt has increased an astonishing 116 percent. This mountain of debt is distorting countless young Americans' basic life choices, from decisions on their career, to getting married, to buying a home, and to starting a family. It's discouraging many from occupations such as teaching, social work and law enforcement, which are lower paying, but bring large rewards for our society. And it's perpetuating a shameful status quo, in which low-income and first- generation students are far less likely to earn a college degree than other students. It's obvious we need to act immediately to make both college costs and student debt more manageable--and that is what this bill is all about. The Student Debt Relief Act will help lift the financial yoke that burdens our students and families as they try to pay for college. To assist our neediest students, it will immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4050 to $5100 with mandatory funding. The Pell Grant has been the indispensable lifeline to college for low-income and middle income students for more than 40 years. But today--after five years of broken promises from the President to increase the maximum grant--we've seen its buying power erode. Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered 55 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public 4-year college. Now it covers less than 32 percent of those costs. Over the last five years, the gap between the cost of attending college and the maximum Pell grant has continued to grow. In addition, for the first time in six years, the average Pell Grant has declined. We must reverse this trend. It's time to say, No more broken promises. That's what we'll do by passing the Student Debt Relief Act. The Act will also cut interest rates in half--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--on new student loans for our neediest students. Last year, the Republican Congress allowed interest rates to rise on student loans, putting college even further out of reach for millions of students. Because of this interest rate hike, typical student borrowers--already straining with more than $17,000 in debt--will be forced to pay an additional $5,800 for their college loans. But a new day has now dawned in Congress, and last week, our colleagues in the House showed they have their priorities right on college costs by cutting student loan interest rates in half. Now it's our turn in the Senate. But we won't stop there. We also need to do more to help students manage the burden of unreasonable debt on their student loans. No student should have to mortgage their future to pay for college. And no one should have their lives thrown into disarray when unexpected financial hardship makes it much harder for them to make their student loan payments. That's why the Student Debt Relief Act caps student loan payments at 15 percent of monthly discretionary income. It forgives loans after 25 years, and also provides a 10-year loan forgiveness option for students who work in public service professions. This Act will also help reform our broken student loan system, which is larded with inexcusably large subsidies to big lenders and filled with rules that are unfriendly to borrowers. Like my Student Aid Reward Act, it gives colleges new incentives to offer loans to students through the Direct Loan program--which is cheaper for taxpayers--rather than the more expensive loan FFEL program that's operated through private lenders. President Bush's own figures back this up. According to his 2007 education budget, the privately-funded student loan program costs taxpayers $6 more for every $100 lent than the same loans made through the Direct Loan program. When colleges switch to the less-expensive program, the Student Debt Relief Act will let them keep a portion of the savings to the government generated by that switch by giving it back to the schools, in the form of increased Pell Grant aid to students. The savings generated by this Act will be enough to increase federal Pell Grants by $1000 each at many colleges, making higher education more affordable for millions of students. For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, college students would reap an extra $53 million in Pell Grant scholarships per year. And all told, it could generate an additional $13 billion in Pell Grants for students over 10 years. The Student Debt Relief Act also extends the college tuition tax deduction, increasing the allowable deduction to $12,000. It repeals the student-unfriendly rule that prevents students from consolidating their loans while they're still in school, and allows them to reconsolidate them as well. In the Direct Loan program, it also reduces the origination fee that students pay when loans are made, also helping to ease the burden on borrowers. In short, it's a comprehensive plan to ease the double blow of soaring college costs and heavy student loan burdens. It's a plan we must move forward--for the sake of our students, their future, and the future of our Nation. Access to college is the key to our opportunity, to our economy, and to our values. So we must act now. Today, in communities across America, students are dreaming about what they want to be when they become adults. And as their parents watch tomorrow's doctors, teachers, engineers and lawyers in action, they know that all of those dreams depend on a college education. When our children dream about their future, they need to know that those dreams are within their reach. A college education is the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. So let's work together to get it done. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007. It is an honor to join Senator Snowe, Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Gregg, and other members of our committee in support of this needed legislation. I especially commend Senator Snowe for her leadership in this effort to establish protections for the public against genetic discrimination. It is now over a decade since Senator Snowe first introduced legislation on the issue. It passed the Senate 98-0 in the last Congress, and I am very hopeful we can work with our colleagues in the House and enact it into law, so that our people will finally have the protections they need against the misuse of genetic information. In this century of the life sciences, much of what we learn through biomedical research is being translated into new treatments and cures, and nowhere is the explosion of scientific progress more apparent than in the field of genetics. Four years after the remarkable achievement of discovering the sequence of the human genome, clinical testing is now possible for over a thousand genetic diseases. It has led to rapid growth in the field of personalized medicine, in which patients' treatment and care is individualized according to their genetic makeup. In the absence of federal protections, however, patients fear that undergoing genetic tests may lead to disqualification from future insurance coverage, or that an employer will fire them or deny a promotion based on the results of a genetic test. The consequence is that many Americans are choosing not to be tested, and are declining to participate in clinical trials so important for the development of new treatments. Discrimination based on genetics is just as wrong as discrimination based on race or gender. Our bill provides specific protections for citizens against genetic discrimination. It prohibits health insurers from picking and choosing their customers based on genetics. Employers cannot fire or refuse to hire persons because of their genetic characteristics. It enables Americans to benefit from better health care through the use of genetic information, without the fear that it will be misused against them. It is difficult to imagine information more personal or more private than a person's genetic makeup. It should not be shared by insurers or employers, or be used in making decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to make the best diagnostic and treatment decisions they can. In the near future, genetic tests will become even cheaper and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease. If Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be misused. If Congress fails to make sure that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we may well squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the nation's health. The bill that we are considering today has been unanimously approved by the full Senate in the past two Congresses. We passed it 95-0 in the 108th Congress, and 98-0 in the 109th Congress. It had over 240 cosponsors in the House in both Congresses, but the leadership refused to bring it to a vote. As President Bush himself has said, ``Genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' We are closer than ever to enactment. I urge the Senate to approve the bill, and this time, I think we will finally see it become law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007. It's long past time for Congress to take action to address the crisis in college affordability. The cost of college has more than tripled in the last 20 years. Today, the average cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is almost $13,000. As a result, students and families are pinching pennies more than ever to pay for higher education. Increasingly, more and more students are finding it's just not possible. Every year, 400,000 students who are qualified to attend a 4-year college find themselves shut out because of cost factors. At a time when 6 out of 10 jobs require some form of post-secondary training, this is completely unacceptable. When qualified students are blocked from the college gates because of cost, they're also blocked from their ticket to the American Dream. It's a situation that's putting our prosperity and economic security as a country at risk. But the crisis on college affordability is not just limited to those most in need. Every low and middle income family in America is affected by it. Today, the average student in the U.S. leaves college saddled with more than $17,000 in federal student loans on graduation day. At private universities, the level of student loan debt has increased 108 percent over the past decade. And at public universities, student loan debt has increased an astonishing 116 percent. This mountain of debt is distorting countless young Americans' basic life choices, from decisions on their career, to getting married, to buying a home, and to starting a family. It's discouraging many from occupations such as teaching, social work and law enforcement, which are lower paying, but bring large rewards for our society. And it's perpetuating a shameful status quo, in which low-income and first- generation students are far less likely to earn a college degree than other students. It's obvious we need to act immediately to make both college costs and student debt more manageable--and that is what this bill is all about. The Student Debt Relief Act will help lift the financial yoke that burdens our students and families as they try to pay for college. To assist our neediest students, it will immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4050 to $5100 with mandatory funding. The Pell Grant has been the indispensable lifeline to college for low-income and middle income students for more than 40 years. But today--after five years of broken promises from the President to increase the maximum grant--we've seen its buying power erode. Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered 55 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public 4-year college. Now it covers less than 32 percent of those costs. Over the last five years, the gap between the cost of attending college and the maximum Pell grant has continued to grow. In addition, for the first time in six years, the average Pell Grant has declined. We must reverse this trend. It's time to say, No more broken promises. That's what we'll do by passing the Student Debt Relief Act. The Act will also cut interest rates in half--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--on new student loans for our neediest students. Last year, the Republican Congress allowed interest rates to rise on student loans, putting college even further out of reach for millions of students. Because of this interest rate hike, typical student borrowers--already straining with more than $17,000 in debt--will be forced to pay an additional $5,800 for their college loans. But a new day has now dawned in Congress, and last week, our colleagues in the House showed they have their priorities right on college costs by cutting student loan interest rates in half. Now it's our turn in the Senate. But we won't stop there. We also need to do more to help students manage the burden of unreasonable debt on their student loans. No student should have to mortgage their future to pay for college. And no one should have their lives thrown into disarray when unexpected financial hardship makes it much harder for them to make their student loan payments. That's why the Student Debt Relief Act caps student loan payments at 15 percent of monthly discretionary income. It forgives loans after 25 years, and also provides a 10-year loan forgiveness option for students who work in public service professions. This Act will also help reform our broken student loan system, which is larded with inexcusably large subsidies to big lenders and filled with rules that are unfriendly to borrowers. Like my Student Aid Reward Act, it gives colleges new incentives to offer loans to students through the Direct Loan program--which is cheaper for taxpayers--rather than the more expensive loan FFEL program that's operated through private lenders. President Bush's own figures back this up. According to his 2007 education budget, the privately-funded student loan program costs taxpayers $6 more for every $100 lent than the same loans made through the Direct Loan program. When colleges switch to the less-expensive program, the Student Debt Relief Act will let them keep a portion of the savings to the government generated by that switch by giving it back to the schools, in the form of increased Pell Grant aid to students. The savings generated by this Act will be enough to increase federal Pell Grants by $1000 each at many colleges, making higher education more affordable for millions of students. For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, college students would reap an extra $53 million in Pell Grant scholarships per year. And all told, it could generate an additional $13 billion in Pell Grants for students over 10 years. The Student Debt Relief Act also extends the college tuition tax deduction, increasing the allowable deduction to $12,000. It repeals the student-unfriendly rule that prevents students from consolidating their loans while they're still in school, and allows them to reconsolidate them as well. In the Direct Loan program, it also reduces the origination fee that students pay when loans are made, also helping to ease the burden on borrowers. In short, it's a comprehensive plan to ease the double blow of soaring college costs and heavy student loan burdens. It's a plan we must move forward--for the sake of our students, their future, and the future of our Nation. Access to college is the key to our opportunity, to our economy, and to our values. So we must act now. Today, in communities across America, students are dreaming about what they want to be when they become adults. And as their parents watch tomorrow's doctors, teachers, engineers and lawyers in action, they know that all of those dreams depend on a college education. When our children dream about their future, they need to know that those dreams are within their reach. A college education is the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. So let's work together to get it done. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to join my colleague, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, to mark a significant and sad anniversary. Ten years ago today, America lost a great patriot, Massachusetts lost a great advocate, and John Kerry and I lost a great friend when Paul Tsongas passed away after a valiant and courageous fight with cancer. Paul Tsongas was the epitome of a public servant. From his time in the Peace Corps in both Ethiopia and the West Indies in the 1960s through his spirited campaign for the Presidency in 1992, Paul lived by the words my brother Jack believed so strongly, that each of us can make a difference and all of us should try. Paul Tsongas tried his best to do so, all his life, and he made a large and continuing difference. To the people of his beloved Lowell, he proved that our great industrial cities can be reborn and renewed, with a creative emphasis on reshaping their great history to meet the needs of our current high tech economy. In the 1970s and 1980s, when America was moving inexorably to the suburbs and so many of our great urban centers were being hollowed out, many of our people found it increasingly difficult to see a bright future for urban areas decimated by the decline of manufacturing. But today, across the country, a new movement has been born to encourage creative investment in our cities, and one of the first models for how such efforts can succeed is the vision Paul Tsongas had for Lowell, MA. F. Scott Fitzgerald may have said there are no second acts in American life, but Paul Tsongas could have responded, ``Let him come to Lowell.'' Paul served in the House and joined me in the Senate in 1978. He was someone I knew I could always count on to fight hard for the people of Massachusetts, and the Nation. He was tireless, determined, and always well prepared. Sometimes we would disagree on policy matters, here and there, but if you were going to challenge Paul, you had better have your facts straight because he knew what he was talking about. He also was an outstanding campaigner. The conventional wisdom in politics has always been--at least as long as I can remember--that candidates with difficult to pronounce names have a small additional hurdle. Paul had a silent ``t'' at the beginning of his name, and I will never forget how brilliantly he turned that small disadvantage into a major asset in his victorious campaigns for elective office. He ran hilarious ads that had all these people struggling to pronounce his name, and none of them could do it. But by the end of the campaign, every voter could do the silent ``t'' and everyone loved the candidate who made fun of himself on TV. Its is a lesson that Paul would carry on throughout his courageous battle against cancer. Everyone faces obstacles--some great and some small. It's how we choose to deal with them that makes us who we are. Paul Tsongas was an inspiration to all who knew him. The son of a Greek immigrant father and a mother who died of tuberculosis, he demonstrated again and again that through hard work, commitment, and a passion for doing what is right, all things are possible in our America. He charted a new course for the city he loved. He authored the Alaska Lands Act to protect millions of acres of American wilderness, and he founded, with our former colleague, Warren Rudman, the Concord Coalition, which has become a highly respected force for fiscal responsibility since its creation in the early 1990s. When the diagnosis of cancer was made, he left the Senate to spend more time with his wonderful wife Niki, his loving sister Thaleia, and his three daughters, Ashley, Katina, and Molly. After completing his rigorous treatment, he threw his hat in the Presidential ring in the 1992 primaries and his candidacy helped fuel the movement to make Government accountable for its fiscal policies. He left an immense and enduring legacy. We miss you, Paul. We miss your bravery and your commitment. We miss your friendship and concern, but we know you are resting in peace today after an extraordinary and well-lived life. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President it is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to Art Buchwald. Art finally said good-bye to all of us last night. It was far too soon. Art is survived by his son Joel and his wife Tamara--who he lived with for so many wonderful years--his daughters Jennifer and Connie, his two sisters and five grandchildren. We are fortunate to have had him for so long, and he will be missed very much. Art was an incredible friend to my wife Vicki and me and to the entire Kennedy family. We all enjoyed Art's company and columns, and President Kennedy was known to read Art's column regularly while he was in the White House. We enjoyed so many delightful times together. Whether here in Washington or on Martha's Vineyard, Art brought tons of laughter into our lives. We'll continue to remember him and his wife, Ann McGarry Buchwald, as they will now be laid to rest together on the Vineyard. Art was the Mark Twain of our time. He will forever live on in our hearts and minds for his brilliant wit and observations. For decades there was no better way to start the day than to open the morning paper to Art's column, laugh out loud and learn all over again to take the issues seriously in the world of politics, but not take yourself too seriously. As Art said, ``Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times, it's the only time we've got.'' The special art of Art Buchwald was to make even the worst of times better. We are fortunate to have had him for so long, and I will miss him very much. Art was born in 1925 in Mount Vernon, New York, and made his own way in the world becoming a renowned political humorist and highly regarded columnist. In 1982, he received a Pulitzer Prize. Art never stopped working--writing and making us laugh right up until the very end. Just last November, he published his final book, ``Too Soon To Say Goodbye.'' He even had the foresight to write one final column-- published today. Among his final words were these: I don't know how well I've done while I was here, but I'd like to think that some of my printed works will persevere at least for three years. In fact, Art, they'll persevere forever. Vicki and I remember fondly celebrating Art's 80th birthday just over a year ago with The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, together with my sister Eunice and her husband Sargent Shriver. Like every gathering with Art, it was an evening full of joy, humor and passion. Art was a great friend to the Brady Center and an inspiring advocate for sensible gun laws. He was a true leader for the cause and we are closer to our goal of rational gun control today because of him. Art was also an outspoken and powerful advocate on the importance of mental health care, speaking openly about his own experiences and providing hope to some many others. When we lost President Kennedy, Art honored him with his column, ``We Weep.'' He wrote: We weep for our president who died for his country. We weep for his wife and his children, brothers and sisters. We weep for the millions of people who are weeping for him. We weep for Americans that this could happen in our country. We weep for the Europeans and the Africans and the Asians and people in every corner of the globe who saw in him a hope for the future and a chance for mankind. Today, Art, the world weeps for you. I ask unanimous consent that Art Buchwald's final column, published today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, yesterday morning, January 17, a convoy carrying a staff member of the National Democratic Institute and members of her security team was ambushed in Baghdad. Andrea Parhamovich, an American citizens, was killed. Three other NDI employees, citizens from Croatia, Hungary, and Iraq, also lost their lives in the attack. Since June 2003, the National Democratic Institute has been working with Iraqi citizens, outside the Green Zone and at great risk, to help build the foundations on which a true democracy depends. I did not know Ms. Parhamovich, whose life was taken so tragically yesterday. But all of us recognize the ideals which inspired her to undertake such a dangerous mission for her country and the people of Iraq. I offer my deepest respect and appreciation to her last true measure of devotion to democratic ideals. To her family, and the families of those who were also killed, I offer my deepest condolences.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senators Feinstein and Craig and my other colleagues today as we re-introduce the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007. I commend them and Representatives Howard Berman and Chris Cannon for their bipartisan leadership and am pleased to be part to this landmark legislation. The bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry, one of the most difficult immigration challenges we face, and we in Congress should make the most of this unique opportunity for progress. America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. But our current immigration laws have failed us on both counts. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a halt without immigrant farm workers. Yet, the overwhelming majority of these workers lack legal status, and thus can be easily exploited by unscrupulous employers. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act-- AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. It will give farm workers and their families the dignity and justice they deserve, and it will give agricultural employees a legal workforce. This compromise has broad support in Congress, and from business and labor, civic and faith-based organizations, liberals and conservatives, trade associations and immigrant rights groups. The AgJOBS Act is a needed reform in our immigration laws, to reflect current economic realities, address our security needs more effectively, and do so in a way that respects America's immigrant heritage. It provides a fair and reasonable way for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status and also reforms the current visa program, so that employers unable to find American workers can hire needed foreign workers. Together they serve as the cornerstone for comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector. AgJOBS is good for labor and business. The Nation can no longer ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural workers are undocumented. Growers need an immediate, reliable and legal workforce at harvest time. Farm workers need legal status to improve their wages and working conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because of the lack of an adequate labor force. The AgJOBS Act provides a fair and reasonable process for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. Undocumented farm workers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous labor contractors and growers, and their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers. Our bill provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been toiling in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables. The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this country, workers would not only have to demonstrate past work contributions to the U.S. economy, but also make a substantial future work commitment. These workers will be able to come forward, identify themselves, provide evidence that they have been employed in agriculture, and continue to work hard and play by the rules. The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance and streamlines the H-2A program's application process by reducing paperwork for employers and accelerate processing. But individuals participating in the program receive strong labor protections. Anything else would undermine the jobs, wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. This legislation would unify families. When temporary residence is granted, the farm worker's spouse and minor children would be allowed to remain legally in the U.S., but they would not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children would also gain such status. AgJOBS will also enhance national security and reduce illegal immigration. AgJOBS will also reduce the chaotic, illegal, and all-too- deadly flows of immigrants at our borders by providing safe and legal avenues for farm workers and their families. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. Enforcement resources will be more effectively focused on the highest risks. By bringing undocumented farm workers out of the shadows and require them to pass thorough security checks, it will enable our officers to more effectively train their sights on terrorists and criminals. Last year, the Senate came together--Democrats and Republicans--to pass farreaching immigration reform legislation, which included the AgJOBS bill. The American people are calling on us to come together again. They know there is a crisis and they want action now. The President has been a leader on immigration reform, and I'm hopeful that he will renew his efforts with members of his party, so that we can enact comprehensive reform legislation, to end the festering crisis once and for all. The House of Representatives is now ready to be a genuine partner in this effort. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants. Our legislation proposes necessary changes in the law while preserving this tradition. This bill will ensure that immigrant farm workers can live the American dream and contribute to our prosperity, our security, and our values and I hope very much that it can be enacted quickly in this new Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senators Feinstein and Craig and my other colleagues today as we re-introduce the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007. I commend them and Representatives Howard Berman and Chris Cannon for their bipartisan leadership and am pleased to be part to this landmark legislation. The bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry, one of the most difficult immigration challenges we face, and we in Congress should make the most of this unique opportunity for progress. America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. But our current immigration laws have failed us on both counts. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a halt without immigrant farm workers. Yet, the overwhelming majority of these workers lack legal status, and thus can be easily exploited by unscrupulous employers. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act-- AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. It will give farm workers and their families the dignity and justice they deserve, and it will give agricultural employees a legal workforce. This compromise has broad support in Congress, and from business and labor, civic and faith-based organizations, liberals and conservatives, trade associations and immigrant rights groups. The AgJOBS Act is a needed reform in our immigration laws, to reflect current economic realities, address our security needs more effectively, and do so in a way that respects America's immigrant heritage. It provides a fair and reasonable way for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status and also reforms the current visa program, so that employers unable to find American workers can hire needed foreign workers. Together they serve as the cornerstone for comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector. AgJOBS is good for labor and business. The Nation can no longer ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural workers are undocumented. Growers need an immediate, reliable and legal workforce at harvest time. Farm workers need legal status to improve their wages and working conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because of the lack of an adequate labor force. The AgJOBS Act provides a fair and reasonable process for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. Undocumented farm workers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous labor contractors and growers, and their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers. Our bill provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been toiling in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables. The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this country, workers would not only have to demonstrate past work contributions to the U.S. economy, but also make a substantial future work commitment. These workers will be able to come forward, identify themselves, provide evidence that they have been employed in agriculture, and continue to work hard and play by the rules. The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance and streamlines the H-2A program's application process by reducing paperwork for employers and accelerate processing. But individuals participating in the program receive strong labor protections. Anything else would undermine the jobs, wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. This legislation would unify families. When temporary residence is granted, the farm worker's spouse and minor children would be allowed to remain legally in the U.S., but they would not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children would also gain such status. AgJOBS will also enhance national security and reduce illegal immigration. AgJOBS will also reduce the chaotic, illegal, and all-too- deadly flows of immigrants at our borders by providing safe and legal avenues for farm workers and their families. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. Enforcement resources will be more effectively focused on the highest risks. By bringing undocumented farm workers out of the shadows and require them to pass thorough security checks, it will enable our officers to more effectively train their sights on terrorists and criminals. Last year, the Senate came together--Democrats and Republicans--to pass farreaching immigration reform legislation, which included the AgJOBS bill. The American people are calling on us to come together again. They know there is a crisis and they want action now. The President has been a leader on immigration reform, and I'm hopeful that he will renew his efforts with members of his party, so that we can enact comprehensive reform legislation, to end the festering crisis once and for all. The House of Representatives is now ready to be a genuine partner in this effort. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants. Our legislation proposes necessary changes in the law while preserving this tradition. This bill will ensure that immigrant farm workers can live the American dream and contribute to our prosperity, our security, and our values and I hope very much that it can be enacted quickly in this new Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on December 10, in Stockholm, Sweden, the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2006 was awarded to Dr. Craig C. Mello of the University of Massachusetts Medical School for his revolutionary discovery of the gene-silencing process called RNA interference. RNAi, as it is called, is a fundamental mechanism for controlling the flow of genetic information. Dr. Mello's discovery is universally considered to be one of the most significant biomedical discoveries of the past decade, and it has opened up extraordinary opportunities for the development of new therapies for cancer, heart disease, illnesses, and many other conditions. Dr. Mello is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and the Blais University Chair in Molecular Medicine at UMass Medical School. His research and its international recognition by the Nobel Committee have brought great honor and pride to our city, Commonwealth, and Nation. Dr. Mello received his B.S. from Brown University in 1982 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1990. He served as a postdoctoral fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, and joined the faculty of UMass in 1994. I join Dr. Mello's many friends and colleagues in congratulating him for his landmark discovery, and I wish him well in the years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the managers on the floor at this time. I do not wish to interrupt the flow of the discussion. I would like to speak briefly on another matter, to speak for a very few minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield for that purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I intend to, briefly--if the Senator has a consent request, I will be glad to yield for that purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield for that purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. American lives, American values, America's role in the world is at stake. As the November election made clear, the American people oppose this war, and an even greater number oppose sending more troops to Iraq. The American people are demanding a change in course in Iraq. Instead, the President is accelerating the same failed course he has pursued for nearly 4 years. He must understand Congress will not endorse this course. The President's decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people and will only compound our original mistake in going to war in Iraq in the first place. This morning, the Secretary of State testified that the Iraqi Government ``is . . . on borrowed time.'' In fact, time is already up. The Iraqi Government needs to make the political compromises necessary to end this civil war. The answer is not more troops, it is a political settlement. The President talked about strengthening relations with Congress. He should begin by seeking authority from Congress for any escalation of the war. The mission of our Armed Forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance whatsoever to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq war resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational relationship with al-Qaida, and was in defiance of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Not one Member of Congress--not one--would have voted in favor of the resolution if they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war. The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubberstamp for the President's failed strategy. We should insist on a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of the brave men and women in uniform who have served so gallantly in Iraq. President Bush has been making up his mind on Iraq ever since the election. Before he escalates the war, the American people deserve a voice in his decision. He is the Commander in Chief, but he is still accountable to the people. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress a key role in decisions of war and peace. We know an escalation of troops into this civil war will not work. We have increased our military presence in the past, and each time the violence has increased and the political problems have persisted. Despite what the President says, his own generals are on the record opposing a surge in troops. Last November 15, 2006, General Abizaid was unequivocal that increasing our troop commitment is not the answer. He said: I've met with every divisional commander--General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I said, ``in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said no. On December 29, General Casey said: The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. . . .They can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems. Time and again our leaders in Vietnam escalated our military presence, and each new escalation of force led to the next. We escalated the war instead of ending it. And similar to Vietnam, there is no military solution to Iraq, only political. The President is the last person in America to understand that. We must not only speak against the surge in troops, we must act to prevent it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. to hold hearings to examine the long term budget outlook in SD-608.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Prescription Drug Pricing and Negotiation: An Overview and Economic Perspectives for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.''