Floor Statements

Madam President, I strongly support the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, and I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this important measure to restore the vitality of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I know too well how urgently this legislation is needed to protect the civil rights of persons with disabilities.

America's strength and success as a nation have been fueled by its founding promise of equal justice for all. Yet for much of the Nation's history, persons with disabilities were treated as people who needed charity, not opportunity. Out of ignorance, the Nation accepted discrimination for decades, and yielded to fear and prejudice.

In the 35 years since passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which outlawed discrimination against persons

with disabilities in programs and activities receiving Federal funds, our Nation has made great progress toward making the promise of equal justice a reality for such persons. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 continued this progress by extending housing protections to persons with disabilities, but it was the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which opened wide the doors of opportunity by providing long-overdue protections against job discrimination and greater access to public accommodations. The 1990 act was a giant step toward guaranteeing that persons with disabilities would be full participants in the American dream.

Unfortunately, however, in many job discrimination cases, the courts have interpreted the act so narrowly that many of us who were original sponsors of the act barely recognize it today. Courts have ruled that many of the very persons the act was designed to protect are not covered by its provisions. These decisions have improperly shifted the emphasis in ADA cases away from the central question of whether discrimination occurred.

The bill we are considering today reaffirms Congress's intent that the courts should interpret the ADA broadly to fulfill its important purpose. In deciding whether to grant relief under the act, courts should respect the act's goal of expanding opportunities for persons with disabilities.

In particular, courts have narrowed the first prong of the ADA's definition of disability, which defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more life activities. As explained in the statement of managers, the bill seeks to remedy this problem by clearly rejecting the reasoning of cases like Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams in 2002, in which the Supreme Court held that this prong of the definition must be ``be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that ``substantially limits'' means ``prevents or severely restricts.''

The bill also rejects the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Sutton v. United Air Lines, which also imposed too heavy a burden on plaintiffs seeking relief under the act.

Although the House of Representatives' consideration of the pending legislation was of significant assistance to the Senate on this issue, in one important respect the Senate diverged from the reasoning expressed in the reports of the committees of jurisdiction in the House. The House version of the bill defined ``substantially limits'' as ``materially restricts,'' and the House Committee reports explained this term with reference to a spectrum or range of severity. The term ``materially restricts'' in the House bill and these portions of the House reports set an inappropriately high standard for the determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity and pose the risk of confusing the threshold determination of who is covered by the act. Fortunately, our Senate bill avoids this problem and provides the broader coverage needed to correct the excessively restrictive and unintended interpretation in the litigation.

In addition, the bill's findings and purposes section states that ``the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.'' This statement makes clear that courts normally should not require an extensive examination of an individual's disability in cases under the ADA. In such cases the main focus should be on whether discrimination has occurred, not on the threshold issue of whether an individual's impairment qualifies as a disability. As the Senate Statement of Managers explains, courts should not interpret this statement to constrain plaintiffs from offering evidence needed to establish that their impairment is substantially limiting. Of course, this statement in the bill does not impose any limitation on what evidence the party with the burden of proof on the issue of disability may offer. Indeed, such a position would be inconsistent with clearly established evidentiary and procedural rules, and constitutional requirements as well. The party with the burden of proving disability is free to introduce all the evidence of disability that he or she believes is appropriate, consistent with evidentiary and procedural rules. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated in a related context, the plaintiff's evidentiary burden is minimal.

Our goal in this bill is to greatly enhance the protections against discrimination for persons with disabilities, and I hope these clarifications will avoid further confusion in future litigation. I am proud to join with Senators Harkin and Hatch and the other sponsors in support of the act, and I strongly urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the two leaders and Senator Enzi. This is important legislation involving national security. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, to try to make recommendations here in the Senate. I

know there are diverse views on this issue. We will try to work out an orderly procedure so that Members will be able to get their views out and considered in the Senate and do it in a timely way.

Again, I thank the two leaders and the Senator from Wyoming as well for his cooperation, as always.

Mr. President, it is always sad when a World War II veteran leaves us. These men and women served our country with immense courage, skill, and dedication, and came home from war to make immense contributions to our society. They have rightly been called ``the greatest generation,'' and we mourn the loss of each and every one of them.

On February 18, another member of the ``greatest generation'' died. Navy veteran Leo Kelly was 87 and lived in Burlington Township in New Jersey with his wife of 58 years, Claire. Leo was the father of six daughters and a son, and I came to know him because his daughter Beth is married to my nephew Joe Kennedy, a son of Robert Kennedy and a former Congressman from Massachusetts in the House of Representatives.

It is Leo Kelly's extraordinary career in the Navy that I want to call to the attention of my colleagues in Congress. Leo Kelly answered the Nation's call soon after World War II began. He enlisted in the Navy in 1942 at the age of 21 and retired in 1964 with the rank of lieutenant commander.

He became a Navy fighter pilot and earned numerous awards and medals for valor and bravery under fire during the war. He served on the USS Langley, which was named for the great American scientist and aviation pioneer Samuel Pierpont Langley. The ship was on the front lines during the critical final years of the war in the Pacific, and the crew as a whole was cited in glowing terms by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal for their outstanding heroism in action that contributed so much to our Nation's victory.

Leo Kelly himself was awarded both the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal for his special heroism on January 12, 1945 in an attack on Japanese shipping in Camranh Bay in French Indo-China, which is now Vietnam. As the citation by President Roosevelt stated.

Kelly fearlessly dove his plane through a heavy curtain of

powerful anti-aircraft fire to score two direct hits with his

rockets and contribute to the damaging of an enemy merchant

vessel. Then, joining in an attack against a group of hostile

seaplanes on the water, he executed a series of strafing runs

and, striking furiously at his target, personally destroyed

one of the enemy aircraft.

Courage like that is what made Leo Kelly a true American hero, and the Nation owes him a debt we can never fully repay.

After the war, Leo Kelly continued his career in the Navy for nearly two decades. From 1953 to 1955 he was assigned to a Naval ROTC unit in Philadelphia and earned his bachelor's degree in political science and attended the Navy's postgraduate school. He retired from the Navy in 1964 and went to work for Tenneco Plastics Company in Burlington, where he and Claire raised their wonderful family.

He had many interests. He was an excellent golfer, and had played for various Navy teams early in his career. He loved classical music, especially playing the violin. He had a profound faith in God, was a member of St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church in Burlington, and had been a member of the Bridge Prison Ministry.

He was also a wonderful family man, as so many members of his family said so movingly at the service held for him in February. His daughter Beth said it beautifully in her eulogy at the service:

Our father was a strong, quiet force in our lives, guiding

us, always encouraging, smiling or nodding his approval. . .

. He always adjusted to whatever came his way. The very

qualities that made him excel at being a pilot prepared him

for a life with six daughters and one son.

America is grateful to Leo Kelly for all he did for our country during his extraordinary life, and I know that future generations of his family will always treasure his memory.

I ask unanimous consent to have his daughter Beth's eulogy printed in the Record, along with the full texts of the World War II citations he received.

Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi. I will now make a comment about the pending legislation. I thought we did have some good discussion and debate on yesterday. A number of important issues were raised. I will try this morning at least to respond to some of those matters to clear up what I think are some questions we had. Obviously, we are interested in moving this process forward, considering amendments, and getting to the Senate's business.

Once again, I will mention two organizations that support our Public Safety Employee Cooperation Act: the International Association of Firefighters and the Union of Police Associations. We pointed out this week is set aside in our Nation, and has been set aside since 1962, to give special honor to our men and women in the police organizations who have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is a very special, solemn ceremony in which they participate. We are mindful of their service every day but especially this week. We are grateful for their strong support for this legislation. They have studied it, analyzed it, looked into it, and support it.

The National Association of Police Organizations and a great many other organizations have supported this legislation--our first responders. These are the organizations that speak for firefighters, speak for police officers, speak for the first responders.

Yesterday we had a good debate about the bill. I think we are off to a good start. I would like to take some time today to set the record straight as to what the bill does do and what the bill does not do. Fundamentally, this bill is about choice, who should make the choice whether public safety workers get a union--the Federal Government, State government, or the workers themselves.

Right now we have a system where the Government makes the choice--26 States give workers the ability to form a union if they want one; 24 States deny workers that option. These 24 State governments think they know better than the workers themselves what is best.

I disagree. Our public safety officers are on the front lines every day fighting fires, stopping crimes, saving lives. They know best how to protect the public. They know best how to keep safe on the job. They know best whether they need a union to represent their interests.

The Cooperation Act gives this choice to the workers. It says the States have to provide a path that workers can use if they decide they want a union. If the workers do not want a union, fine, they do not have to walk down that path. But the State has to make it available and let the workers choose, just as it is with the right to vote. Individuals do not have to vote, but they have the right to vote. This is the State making that judgment. We recognize that as a fundamental right there and here.

Under current law, States make the judgment decision. With the Alexander amendment it will allow the States to make the judgment and decision. Under the Corker amendment, that is it. Under our Cooperation Act it is the workers themselves who make the judgment--do they want it, don't they want it--and we abide by the outcome. That is a basic, fundamental difference.

It is not going to be hard for the States to build this path. All they have to do is provide for four core rights: No. 1, the right to form and join a union; No. 2, the right to sit down and

talk at the table; No. 3, the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and, No. 4, the right to go to a neutral third party when they have disputes.

They can make the judgment whether they want arbitration, whether they want mediation, whether they want fact finding. There are no requirements. They can make those judgments; they can make those decisions. They make the judgments.

Apart from these four things, all other details of the collective bargaining system are left up to the States. States have the flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide how workers can select a union--through card check, elections, or both. Do we understand? The States make those judgments and decisions.

States can decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes-- through arbitration, mediation, fact finding, or some other mechanism. If a State decides not to pass a law providing a framework for bargaining, or if the State law does not provide for the four core rights, the Federal labor relations authority will step in to ensure that workers have these rights. But that is only if the State refuses to act.

We heard a good deal of discussion about the role of this authority and how we do not understand what this is all about and how this is going to change federalism. It is very simple what this legislation does do and what it does not permit. Our first responders sacrifice so much for us each day, the least we owe them is the ability to choose for themselves whether they want a union. We owe them at least that much dignity and respect, and that is what the Cooperation Act provides.

I hope this explanation will ease the minds of many of my colleagues. I think there have been a lot of misconceptions about this bill floating around. I hope this explanation can alleviate some of those concerns. We heard a lot of talk yesterday about this bill imposing Washington's will on the States. Of course that is not true. I happen to think that unions are good for workers, but nothing in this bill imposes my opinion or the opinion of my colleagues on public safety officers. Under this bill, Congress does not make the decision whether public safety officers have a union. Instead, firefighters, police officers, have the choice. That is where the decision will be made.

Several amendments were filed yesterday that would give the State and local governments, the employers, the opportunity to opt out of the requirements of this bill. But these opt-out provisions actually block the rights of the first responders. They would allow the State and local governments to cut off public safety officers' rights. We should let police and firefighters decide whether they want to exercise their rights to have a union. That is what this bill would do.

Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi said people in their States are happy without unions. If that is true, then it is likely nothing will change. If those public safety officers believe their voices are being heard and their concerns are being addressed, then they will choose not to form unions. Nothing in this bill forces them to make a different choice.

Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi should put their assertions to the test and pass this legislation. If they are right, nothing will change. But if they are wrong, public safety officers in Tennessee and Wyoming will vote for unions and get a voice in the workplace.

We also heard that Washington was imposing a one-size-fits-all federal system on the States. This is another misconception. At every turn in drafting this legislation, Senator Gregg and I went out of our way to give States the flexibility to adopt a collective bargaining law that works for them. Under this bill, Congress will not tell Tennessee or Wyoming or any other State how to implement the law. States can choose how to comply.

As I mentioned, States only have to provide the most basic rights. Other than those basic rights, States have the flexibility to adopt the system that works best for them.

I would note that several of the amendments filed yesterday would take these basic choices away from the States and mandate a Federal rule on issues such as right to work or card check. That is not what this bill should be about. The flexibility for States is important as long as the core rights are there.

States also have the flexibility to completely control costs under this bill. This control means there is no risk of unfunded mandates. My colleagues across the aisle love to talk about charges of unfunded mandates, but it simply does not fit.

This bill comes with no--I repeat no--price tag. Nothing in this bill tells the State and local governments to spend any money. Nothing says they have to raise wages. Nothing says they have to improve benefits or shift money from local priorities into public safety. Governments are free to write their own contracts. At the bargaining table, State and local governments are free to offer bargaining proposals that are consistent with their local fiscal needs. They cannot be forced to agree to any terms they do not want or cannot afford.

In addition to being able to protect their interests at the bargaining table, State and local governments can also safeguard their financial interests through the legislative process. The bill explicitly allows State and local legislative bodies to retain the right to approve or disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an agreement be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving such contract or memorandum of understanding.

That simply means elected Representatives have the final say on spending. Do we understand that? The bill explicitly allows the State and local legislative bodies to retain the right to approve or disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an agreement ``be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving such contract or memoranda of understanding.'' Elected Representatives have the final say on spending.

Remember also that under this bill, public safety officers have no right to strike and no requirement of binding arbitration. That means no one can force a contract on a State and local government under this bill.

The other side's additional argument that there will be costs associated with just implementing any new State law is a red herring. The costs will be minimal. All State and local governments already have human resource departments in place. In addition, collective bargaining often creates new efficiencies that actually save money. In Miami, FL, the local firefighter union worked with the community to reconfigure EMS services and ended up saving taxpayers a great deal of money.

On top of all these safeguards for State and local governments, we have adopted an additional safeguard for the States' smallest communities. In addition to the protections I have just outlined, the bill allows State governments to exempt these smaller communities if they want. If a town has fewer than 5,000 residents or employs fewer than 25 workers, the State can say: Our law does not apply to you.

You can see this bill is a reasonable way to extend the choice of whether to have a union for our Nation's public safety officers. We have taken extensive steps to protect State and local flexibility to ensure they will not be burdened by these procedures.

A final argument that we have heard about States rights yesterday was that this bill violates States rights under the Constitution. This argument is simply false. The bill has been carefully crafted to comply with the current Supreme Court cases on the ability of Congress to regulate State governments. Throughout our history, our Federal Government has set core labor standards, such as minimum wage and overtime rules, that apply also to State workers. Do we understand that? Minimum wage, overtime apply to State workers. They apply to them in Massachusetts. They apply in Tennessee.

Bargaining rights are no different. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would argue that the State government should not have to comply with the basic standards prohibiting them from discriminating against workers based on race or gender. The same is true for collective bargaining rights. Bargaining rights are civil rights too.

Moreover, there is a strong Federal interest in the performance of State and local first responders. We have an

increasingly Federal approach to national security. We have created a Department of Homeland Security and appropriated $40 billion for that-- $40 billion, for homeland security.

The last time I looked at the map, all the States fell within that criterion, in terms of being protected. In our post- 9/11 world, this national response to terrorism increasingly depends on coordination with State and local public safety officers. It is more appropriate than ever for the Federal Government to ensure that public safety officers are working as efficiently and as effectively as possible. By encouraging strong partnerships between public safety officers and the cities and States they serve, this bill advances the Government's interests in improving homeland security.

Finally, my colleagues have tried to scare even those States that have good, solid collective bargaining laws into believing that their laws are on the line. In truth, more than half of the States in the country will not be affected by this bill.

As I described a minute ago, the bill does not require that State laws have specific provisions, only that they provide the basic protections I outlined. The Federal Labor Relations Authority, which will make those determinations, is not some secret society. It is a longstanding Federal agency staffed by dedicated career servants and Presidential appointees who are confirmed by the Senate--not greatly different from the National Labor Relations Board, for example.

In summary, you can see that this bill is not the aggressive intrusion into State government that was portrayed yesterday.

In addition, I wish to address some of the other individual concerns raised about the bill that are misleading and misplaced.

First, this bill will not encourage strikes. In fact, this bill provides additional safeguards to prevent strikes. It specifically says that a public safety officer may not engage in a strike, work slowdown, or any action that will measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency services. There is no room for interpretation. That is an ironclad ban on any action that will impair public safety. This language specifically says that a public safety officer may not engage in a strike, work slowdown, or any other action that will measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency services. More importantly, it creates a mechanism for public safety officers and their employers to communicate and build strong bipartisanship that enhances cooperation, decreasing the likelihood of strikes.

It is an insult--it is an insult to public safety officers to suggest that they will strike. It has been decades since there has been a police or firefighters strike in this country. Police and firefighters in most States already have the right to bargain, and there has been no problem with strikes. These brave men and women take their duty to serve the public very seriously, so seriously they are willing to die for it. The suggestion that they would shirk their duty in order to argue over a contract dishonors them and dishonors their sacrifices.

Next, I wish to underscore that this bill will not harm communities that rely on volunteer firefighters. This legislation expressly applies only to employees, which means volunteers are excluded. Any suggestion that cities and towns are going to be forced to bargain with and possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is wrong. What is more, we included language supported by the National Volunteer Firefighter Council to ensure that professional firefighters can continue to volunteer in their off-duty hours. This language outlaws contract provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours. That includes part-time or volunteer firefighting. Senator Enzi says that is not clear, but it seems pretty clear to me.

My colleagues across the aisle also attacked this bill yesterday as hypocritical because it is inconsistent with how our Federal Government treats its own workers. Again, this criticism is untrue and misleading. Federal workers have bargaining rights. They also have a say in their wages. The law allows them to petition the Government each year.

Federal law enforcement offices are an example of how well collective bargaining rights and public safety go together. Whether Congress should give Federal public safety officers the right to directly bargain over wages is an issue for another day. We do not need to resolve that question in order to do the right thing for the State and local offices.

We also heard complaints about the process that brought us to this point. Listening to the debate, you might think this bill was a new idea never explored or never debated. That again is simply false. This bill has been around for a long time. It was introduced in 1999, almost 10 years ago, by Senator DeWine, and then by Senator Gregg. It has also had strong bipartisan support.

My colleagues across the aisle would have us go through more hearings and debate before we act. We do not need more hearings. We have already had a hearing in the HELP Committee. In fact, we have marked this bill up twice, once in 2001 and once in 2003. We even voted on this bill before in 2001. Our Nation's first responders have waited long enough for the basic rights in this bill. We should not make them wait any longer. They do not make us wait when we need them. We should not have them wait any longer.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I am sure I will not object, but I would like to see the amendment. If the Senator will give us a moment to see the amendment, we have not seen it.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, before the leader departs the floor, I wish to thank him again for his strong support for this legislation that is so important to our first responders, to our firefighters, and our police officers in this country.

We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country.

We have bipartisan support for this legislation. We have four amendments that are now pending. We had some understanding that we would have an opportunity to address those amendments during the course of the day. They are all related to this legislation. But oh, no--oh, no--the games are going to be played, and we are saying to the firefighters of this Nation and to the police officers of this Nation and the first responders of this Nation: Your interests, the safety and security of our communities across this Nation,

should be put aside in favor of some political gimmick by the Republican leader in the Senate.

That is what this is about. Make no mistake about it. Every firefighter ought to understand that. We are here now at noontime, ready to do the public's business, ready to take a vote on these issues, but oh, no, the Republican side says: No, you can't do it. You can't do it.

Look, the underlying position the Republicans are talking about is help for our GI bill. Senator Webb has his proposal. I am all in support of what Senator Webb is doing. Why not have that done after this bill is over? Why not have it done after then? Why didn't the Republican leader come on up and speak to the Democratic leader and propose: Let's do that at the end of the week. Do it Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Maybe Senator McCain will come back for it; maybe he won't. Do it after we finish this bill. But, no, we are going to insult--and this is an insult, make no mistake about it. I have been around here long enough to know when the insults are being played, and this is it. This is saying: Your interests are not as important as a political hit. That is what is happening. That is what is happening.

Who are these individuals? Forty billion dollars we spend on homeland security. Forty billion we are spending on homeland security. Who are the people who implement homeland security? They are our firefighters, our police officers, and first responders in all 50 States. They believe they have ways of doing it better than it is being done at the present time. I do too. So do Democrats and so do a few Republicans. We want to work through the political process to give the opportunity to have that done. But oh, no--oh, no--we are not going to do that. We are going to play games. It is Wednesday. It is noontime. We are just going to play some more games. We did it with you guys in the Senate last week on energy. We are going to do it here.

Listen, we are glad and willing to vote. I have been doing that for 45 years, and I am glad to do that now. But make no mistake about it who the target is--who the target is. The Republicans are saying: We will not take the time. We will not take the time to let the Senate work its will in terms of the firefighters and policemen of this country. That is outrageous. It is a gross insult to each and every one of them. It is a slap in the face to each and every one of them. Make no mistake about it, that is what is going on here. That is what is going on here.

Well, we are not giving up. We are not giving up on them. Maybe the other side wants to give up, but we are not giving up on them. We believe their service--their service--is too important to this country, their lives too important to this country. When are we going to be threatened again? Too important to this country.

Maybe the leadership on the other side can tell us whether Senator McCain approved this strategy. Maybe we can find that out. I think the police and firefighters of the country would like to know whether Senator McCain--we have Senator McCain's proposal here. It is difficult to believe an effort would be made to bring this up without his approval. I think firefighters and policemen ought to understand whether Senator McCain supports this proposal. You cannot get away without believing that he does and that he has been an architect. You don't just go around and get 16 Senators. You have to go around here and get all those. This thing has been in the cooking for a period of time. This just did not happen, although it looks--they duck in the cloakroom, and then they run out and do that--all that business.

This has been going on. This is a conscious act, and one will have to assume Senator McCain is absolutely against it. I hope he is able to talk to the firefighters and the police officers and the first responders. Why are you interrupting this bill--this bill--that is so essential to the security, homeland security? Why interrupt this bill when we are in the process--at least we thought so--that we were going to be moving ahead to get some votes on these particular measures? Why? No, no effort at all to try and talk to the leadership, certainly not to--I do not expect--although, for the first 20 years or so I was in this body, people used to do that. They used to talk to people and tell them what was going to come on up. But I do not expect that anymore. But you would have thought: At least talk to the leadership who has responsibility.

So I hope each and every one of the firefighters, police officers, first responders who have been working on this legislation for years--I wish to mention about how long they have been working on this. It was introduced on May 12, 1999. On July 25, 2000, we had a Health Committee hearing. On September 19, 2001, we had a committee markup and reported it out. On November 6, 2001, we had a Senate vote, No. 323. On November 24, we had a HELP Committee markup. On February 4, 2004, it was offered as an amendment to S. 1017. On November 13, 2007, it was offered as amendment No. 2419.

For 8\1/2\ years this has been before the Senate--8\1/2\ years. Two committees, one chaired by the Senator from New Hampshire, the HELP Committee, and the other one by myself, and we supported this bill out. We finally have a chance to debate this. We had a good debate yesterday, and we are prepared to deal with the amendments on a matter of vital national security for our country and for respect for those who are our first responders who have done so much. But the answer is, no.

Would the Senator withhold that request?

As I understand what the majority leader is saying, he is prepared to see the Senate vote on the McCain amendment as well as have a vote on the Webb amendment, and do it in a timely way. Is that what I am gathering here?

The majority leader has indicated they are prepared to go for a time limit on the McCain amendment, a time limit on the Webb amendment, and then have a vote so Members can do it here, and do it in a prompt way. I also understand that we would be able to continue the consideration of this matter but, as I understand, we are not getting any cooperation from the other side.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, may we have order? The Senator is entitled to be heard.

I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be evenly divided between the two parties for the purposes of debate only and at the end of that time, a quorum call be in order.

I so modify, with the understanding that following the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Virginia be recognized.

I just want to say in terms of the voting that we are prepared to vote on our side on the underlying amendments, but we were notified by the other side that we would not be permitted to vote. There was objection from the Republican side to voting on a Democratic amendment, and we insist on getting that worked out so we can move ahead.

Hopefully, we can put aside the games and get moving on this underlying legislation, which is so important. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent further that after Senator Webb, the speakers be rotated from side to side and the time, as mentioned earlier, be evenly divided.

How much time remains, Madam President?

Madam President, I will be glad to yield 10 minutes----

Madam President, I ask for additional time. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes for the Senator from Wyoming.

And I ask unanimous consent that we will have 10 minutes on our side.

I understand we have 22 minutes remaining; is that right?

I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes on our side and for 15 additional minutes on the other side--or 20 minutes on the other side.

Madam President, we have had a very interesting exchange with both Senators from Virginia and the Senator from Nebraska on a matter of enormous importance and consequence, and that is our support for a GI bill that is worthy of the bravery, courage, and valor of those who are serving in the Armed Forces.

The stated legislative purpose of the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who is the architect of this program--and I welcome the chance to be a cosponsor--is to try and do for those who are in the service of our country at this time a similar kind of support in education that those who had served in the colors in World War II received. He has explained it in great detail.

I look forward to supporting that proposal when it comes up on the floor of the Senate, probably the early part of next week. I commend the strong bipartisan support that it has been able to receive. I commend my former chairman, Senator Warner, who led the Armed Services Committee so brilliantly for so many years and has made such an extraordinary contribution to the security of this Nation, both as a serviceman and also as a policy leader, and to Senator Hagel whom I think for all of us has demonstrated enormous courage in service and outside guiding national security policy.

We are going to, after our next couple of speakers, be moving toward consideration of the farm bill conference report. That is a privileged matter, and it displaces the underlying legislation we have been debating, the Cooperation Act, public service legislation we have been considering both yesterday and today. I expect we will continue through the evening on the farm conference report. Further action on our legislation will be deferred until tomorrow.

In conclusion for this afternoon, on the floor we are considering the service of extraordinary Americans: On the one hand, as Senator Webb pointed out, those who serve in the armed services of our country, and on the other hand, we are talking about the 659,000 police officers, 262,000 firefighters, who are in the service of our country trying to provide for our national security.

We are mindful that we spend $40 billion a year on homeland security. What this legislation at its heart is all about is to make sure those service men and women, those police officers, those firefighters, those EMTs, are going to be safe and secure; that they are going to have the best in terms of equipment, and that we are going to listen to those individuals who have dedicated their lives to protecting our fellow citizens all across America. We are going to listen to their recommendations and suggestions on how we can improve their safety and the safety of the American people. We give them a mechanism to be able to do that. That is the framework which is the underlying aspect of the legislation we have before us.

People can talk about unfunded mandates and problems of strikes and all these other items, but nonetheless we cannot and should not and will not get away from the fundamental thrust of this legislation and its importance. We have an extraordinary opportunity to make America safer and more secure--here on the floor of the Senate. Who wants to have that challenge? It is the police officers and the firefighters and the first responders who are prepared to accept that responsibility. All they are asking is to have a voice at the table when judgments and decisions are being made by maybe well-intentioned policymakers, well- intentioned bureaucrats. But we want to make sure those out there on the front lines are at least going to have a voice in these policy judgments and decisions. That is what this legislation is about. That is why it is so important.

We are prepared to deal with the various amendments that come up. We look forward to it. We have gotten off track over the course of the day. With all due respect to others, we find that with the exception of the amendment that was being offered by the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, on bulletproof vests--about which we don't know there is any substantive objection--all the other amendments have been on the other side; not from our side, from their side. We have not tried to interfere with the order those have been offered.

Senator Alexander has been down here and has spoken eloquently. Many Senators have spoken about their amendments. Senator Hatch was down and spent time talking about his amendment.

We are prepared to move ahead. If there is need for further debate, we will have further debate; if not, we are prepared to move ahead and have the judgment made here in the Senate.

This legislation is extremely important. As I have mentioned, it has been around for some 9 years. It was introduced initially by a Republican. It has strong Republican--has strong bipartisan support. I listened to my friend Senator Warner talk about the strong bipartisan support there is for the GI bill. There is strong bipartisan support for this legislation as well, as indeed there should be, and as we have attempted to achieve. We will continue to work in that area.

We look forward, I expect, to have further consideration on this tomorrow. I am very appreciative, as always, of my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. We have a remarkable area of agreement in some public policy areas, but we have sharp areas of differences. This happens to be one of those. This legislation happens to be one of those. But it does not take away the great respect and affection I have for him as a legislator and as a friend.

We look forward to continuing this debate and hopefully a resolution on some of these matters tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

How much time do I have remaining?

I am going to yield 15 minutes--10 minutes to Senator Klobuchar and 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, at an appropriate time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

We are going to be voting on some extremely important energy issues, and I have expressed my views on those before. I wished to take an opportunity to talk about another matter which we will be voting on later this morning, early this afternoon, and then will be the subject matter that will be before the Senate for the next few days. It is an extremely important matter. It deals with our national security; primarily homeland security. It deals with the challenges that our first responders are faced with. I am talking about our police officers, our firefighters, and our first responders. They are the ones who are on the cutting edge of our domestic national security.

We are seeing massive reorganizations of our various institutions that have dealt with homeland security. We have seen additional resources focused on homeland security. The legislation Senator Gregg and I offer will strengthen our national security by including those individuals who are on the frontline into the decisionmaking about what is helpful and useful in terms of the security of our communities, small cities, and large cities all across this Nation. It will give them a voice in making judgments and decisions so those decisions and judgments are not only going to be made by policymakers and bureaucrats but by men and women who are on the ground. The legislation is called our Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. It is bipartisan in nature, and it can make an extraordinary difference.

We had the opportunity last evening to go over the essential elements of the legislation, sort of the dos and the don'ts. There are those who have misconstrued this legislation and have misrepresented the legislation. We have seen that sort of technique around here in the Senate when Members differ with the legislation. They distort it or misrepresent it and then differ with it. It is an old technique that is used around here.

We will have the chance this afternoon and tomorrow--and this is a notice we will welcome--Senator Gregg and I--will welcome amendments. This legislation has in one form or another been before the Senate previously. It had extraordinary bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I believe 98 Republicans supported the legislation, which is an indication of the breadth of support it has.

So we will look forward--and we are going to urge our colleagues to help us move this legislation, which is of such great importance and consequence to the security of our people--we will ask them to help us move it forward. This week is Police Week. Police Week goes back actually to 1962, when it was named by President Kennedy. Since that time, police officers have gathered to pay tribute to those members of the force who have lost their lives over the period of the last year. It is a very impressive ceremony for those who have not gone to it. I have on a number of

different occasions. But we take time this week to pay tribute to those first responders, and we have welcomed their very strong support for this legislation.

This legislation will affect police officers and firefighters. Some 300,000 police officers in 24 States will benefit from this bill and are in strong support of the legislation. We also see support with regards to the firefighters: 134,000 firefighters in 24 different States will benefit. We have worked very closely with them. These are the various groups that support this legislation: The International Association of Firefighters; Fraternal Order of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; the International Union of Police Associations; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

So as I say, we will be ready to deal with this right after the caucuses that we will have during the noon hour. This legislation will hopefully be before the Senate. We are hopeful now. This is a vote on the motion to proceed. We ought to at least have that opportunity to debate this issue, and we are hopeful we will receive the support from both sides of the aisle so we can move forward and debate the issue.

My time has expired and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is the legislation to provide a voice for our public safety offices. We have spent a great deal of time in the Senate on homeland security, but the key to effective homeland security is having effective firefighters, police officials, and first responders. They are the individuals who are really protecting our homeland. They are the ones who should have a voice in decisions affecting the security of our country. This legislation provides them with that, to ensure greater safety and security for all Americans. I hope the Senate will support the cloture motion.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from New York. I think he would like to speak on this issue, and then we will continue to balance off the speakers the best that we can to try to take into consideration the Members' schedules.

But we thank the Senator from New York. If he is prepared to speak, we would welcome his comments.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for extending the courtesy, because we have had some speakers on our side, out of respect for their schedules. We have welcomed their comments at this time.

But I wish to refocus attention to the subject matter at hand, the matter that is before the Senate, and to describe in greater detail this legislation and the reasons for it and the support for this important piece of legislation.

First, I commend the Senate for voting earlier today to take up the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The House passed this bill last July by an overwhelming vote of 314 to 97. The Cooperation Act isn't just about protecting union rights. This bill is vitally important to each and every American because, at its core, it is about safety, the safety of our dedicated first responders and the safety of our Nation in this new era of heightened concerns about homeland security. The bill takes a major step forward in protecting our firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders from danger on the job. Public safety workers are on the front lines of our constant efforts to keep America safe. They are all on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, doing backbreaking, difficult work, and doing it with great skill, great courage, and great dedication.

We have seen all too often how dangerous these jobs can be. These charts illustrate the point. In 2006, more than 75,000 police officers were injured in the line of duty. Last year, 140 police officers paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the line of duty. We see similar numbers with firefighters who put their lives on the line every day. In 2006, more than 83,000 firefighters were injured in the line of duty. Last year, 115 firefighters paid the ultimate price. Another 45 have lost their lives so far this year. This is dangerous work, life- threatening work. These are careers which men and women follow for years with great courage, dedication, and commitment to the public interest and to the families of America. Those are the individuals we are talking about with this legislation.

First responders can also face chronic long-term health problems as well. The courageous firefighters who rushed to Ground Zero on 9/11 now suffer from crippling health problems such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, and post- traumatic stress disorder. They often pay the ultimate price. Last year 250 public safety employees across the country lost their lives in the line of duty. Our public safety workers do not hesitate to rush into fires, wade into floods, put their lives on the line in other ways to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They know better than anyone else what is needed to keep them as safe as possible on the job, and they deserve the right to have a voice in decisions that profoundly affect their lives and their safety.

When governments and public safety workers are unable to cooperate through collective bargaining, the workers' lives are put at needless risk. The numbers tell the story. Look at this chart. States without collective bargaining, which is the underlying issue before the Senate with this legislation, have 39 percent more fatalities. The reason primarily is because firefighters know how to work in ways that can protect the public and also can provide greater safety and security for the firefighters and first responders and police officials as well, based upon their experience, their knowledge of the task which is before them. Because of that, they are able to have a much better safety record. That is basically what we are trying to share, that kind of experience, with the other firefighters and police officials and first responders in other parts of the country who don't have these kinds of protections.

Behind those numbers are the tragic stories of lives that could have been saved with better communication or better cooperation of effort. A heartbreaking example occurred last year in Charleston, SC. Here is the story. In 2002, the Charleston firefighters association asked the city to begin following the National Fire Protection Association. That is an organization that makes recommendations with regard to safety and security in fighting fires. Unfortunately, there was no mechanism to ensure that these concerns could be heard and addressed. On June 18, 2007, nine Charleston firefighters died in the line of duty. In October of 2007, an expert panel hired by the city to investigate the loss recommended that the department begin following NFPA standards and begin meeting with workers.

That was their recommendation after experiencing the loss of lives. Afterwards we wanted to try to establish a procedure to avoid those kinds of circumstances in the future. We will never know how many lives might have been saved on that day in Charleston, if adequate safety standards had been in place, but we do know that in many other fire departments across the country, critical discussions about safety should be happening, but they are not. Unless public safety workers have a voice on the job, these problems will never be fully and fairly addressed. Without the protection of collective bargaining, workers are afraid to speak out for fear they will face retaliation. These fears are well founded because of countless examples of brave and dedicated first responders who have been harshly punished for raising safety concerns.

Consider the case of firefighter Stan Tinney of Odessa, TX. Here is his situation. In 2001, Stan Tinney, president of the Firefighters Association of Odessa, TX published a newsletter critical of the fire department's safety practices, including inadequate staffing and equipment. Tinney was suspended without pay, reprimanded, downgraded in a performance evaluation, and it took a Federal court that later found the Odessa officials violated Tinney's constitutional rights. It took a Federal case in order to do that. Think of all the other Stan Tinneys around the country who have been intimidated by that kind of action. We don't need that. We need to have suggestions. We need ideas. We need recommendations about how to protect our firefighters, our first responders, and our police community.

Tinney and four of his coworkers, when this incident took place, were questioned individually by city officials and Tinney was suspended without pay, reprimanded, and downgraded. A Federal court later found his constitutional rights had been violated, and the city settled Tinney's claim for $265,000. All that heartache and expense could have been avoided if there had been a mechanism in place for Tinney to express his concern. This legislation provides that.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will give Stan Tinney and countless others like him a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs, their health and safety, and their families. It will give them a safer workplace, and, just as important, it will give them a right to be treated with dignity and respect.

It is not just individual workers who will benefit from this important legislation. Enabling public safety workers and their employers to work cooperatively together makes our entire Nation safer.

In the past decade, we have seen dramatic changes in the way we protect our country. National security has become a local issue. Every city and town in our country--large and small, urban and rural--now has a vital role in keeping us safe from harm.

In this new and more dangerous world, State and local public safety workers are being asked to play an even larger role. We have asked them to become true partners with Federal security agencies in protecting our country from threats, and these dedicated workers have risen to the challenge. But year after year, we are failing to give them the support they need to do their vital jobs as effectively as possible.

Giving these brave men and women the voice they deserve at the bargaining table will facilitate cooperation between public safety workers and their employers. It will enable them to perform their jobs more efficiently and effectively. The benefits are obvious, and we see them in communities across the country that have already accepted the basic principles of public safety cooperation.

Take the example of Annapolis, MD. Until recently, scheduling rules for firefighters and paramedics in Annapolis, MD, often forced them-- these are the workers--to work 48-hour shifts, leaving workers vulnerable to exhaustion and dangerous mistakes. The local union worked with management through collective bargaining to change scheduling rules, shortening

shifts and improving safety for the workers and the public. It does not sound too complicated. It just sounds like common sense to me. And it sounds like an important step in order to provide greater safety and protection for families in Annapolis. Workers there were concerned about scheduling rules, and through a cooperative collective bargaining relationship, the union worked with management to negotiate a new schedule that met the city's needs, while reducing the length of individual shifts. These obvious changes resulted in better rested and more effective firefighters and paramedics, with real benefits to both the first responders and the communities they serve.

Such cooperation also gives State and local governments the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances.

Look at this chart. The economy in Tulsa, OK, was struggling after September 11. Through collective bargaining, the mayor and the firefighters agreed to defer payments into the firefighters' Health and Welfare Trust for 1 year. The deferral saved the city over $400,000, and the city was able to spread its repayment to the trust over a longer period of time, providing valuable flexibility that helped the city address its budget troubles--working together with the community and for the community, an important achievement and an important accomplishment.

Some of my colleagues argue that granting them collective bargaining rights will limit the ability of States and cities to respond effectively to an emergency. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen, in the most dramatic illustration, that all 343 firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on September 11 were union members and with collective bargaining rights. There is no question about their courage, no question about their bravery, no question about their willingness to do their duty and do it heroically. When challenged, that has certainly been the evidence time-in and time- out. So we reject those suggestions and those observations.

In addition, for example, before 9/11, the Port Authority police officers worked 8-hour days, with 2 days off, each week. After 9/11, everyone worked 12-hour shifts every day and all vacations and personal time were canceled. This hard schedule continued for nearly 3 years, but neither the union nor any union member filed a single grievance about it. They did their duty, and they did it heroically.

Do we understand that? As to police officers for the Port Authority that has responsibility in the greater port area in New York, before 9/ 11 they worked 8-hour days, with 2 days off, each week, and after 9/11 everyone worked 12-hour shifts every day and all vacations and personal time were canceled. The hard schedule continued for nearly 3 years, and neither the union nor any union member filed a single grievance--not a single grievance--when they were called upon to meet their responsibility--not a single grievance. They did their duty, and they did it heroically.

Our families and communities deserve the best public safety services we can possibly provide, and achieving that goal starts with the strong foundation that comes with collective bargaining.

No one doubts that our communities and our country are living on borrowed time. We all hope the numerous other steps we are taking will be successful in preventing similar catastrophic attacks. It makes no sense not to make the basic rights granted by this legislation available to all of America's first responders. It is an urgent matter of public safety. I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to give our heroes the respect and support they deserve by approving the Cooperation Act.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Utah. We did have three speakers on our side, and we are going to do the best we can to balance it. I think the Senator's side is next. How long does the Senator from Utah wish to speak? Then I will ask that the Senator from New York to follow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for 20 minutes following Senator Hatch.

Mr. President, we will recognize the Senator from New Jersey, but if he will yield a minute.

Mr. President, we want to permit others to speak. I will speak in a short time in response to my friend and colleague from Wyoming. If this legislation did what he suggested it did, I would not be a sponsor or support the legislation either. I will go into some detail in explaining what the legislation does do and what it doesn't do.

With regard to the Senator from Utah, this issue about having a secret ballot or nonsecret ballot, we leave up to the States. Rather than trying to mandate that--a lot has been talked about giving the States options as to how to proceed. We say on both items the Senator addressed that the States are the ones that should make the judgment and determinations.

We will have a longer time to debate this issue.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I always appreciate hearing from the Senator from New Jersey. I hope our colleagues will listen carefully to what the Senator from New Jersey has said because he comes to this debate as a former mayor. Mayors, as we all know, have had special relationships, obviously, with firefighters and police on the firing line. So when I hear the Senator from New Jersey talk about that value as a former mayor, he can see the value in terms of safety and security for the people in that community as a result of this legislation in terms of cooperative discussions and arrangements. That says a good deal.

Some have presented a situation--which, of course, is not accurate-- where this legislation is going to be imposing extraordinary hardships, additional burdens, and unfunded mandates on mayors, particularly in smaller communities, and do a great disservice, actually, in terms of the whole relationship between the public safety officers and the security of the community.

So I particularly value his comments on this aspect of the bill. There are obviously a number of other important aspects of it. But as it relates to small towns, I forget the actual population or the size of the community, the city that the good Senator was the mayor of, but, in any event, if he could elaborate on his views about this legislation and its importance to mayors as well as to firefighters, I think it would be very helpful because he speaks from very practical experience.

Would the Senator yield for another question?

I think all of us in this body know the good Senator represents the State of New Jersey in this case, which had suffered extraordinary loss at the time of 9/11. A number of those extraordinary firefighters lived in the Senator's State. So when he speaks about these issues, talking about the courage and the bravery of these firefighters, he talks about it with a good deal of background and understanding and an enormous sense of compassion for having gone through with many of these families their loss.

That is why, I believe, the Senator in his strong support for this legislation, as a former mayor and also someone who knows and has personal experience with these firefighters, can speak so authoritatively about what this legislation can mean in terms of the safety and security of the community and also with regard to the safety and security of the firefighters, police officers, first responders.

Does the Senator agree with me that those who were not lost on that day but in a very real sense brothers and sisters of the first responders who were lost on 9/11, many of whom were lost in his district, do they feel that legislation will help and assist providing safety and security to the people, whether it is in New Jersey, or in the communities they represent, and that they are supporting this legislation because they are very hopeful and prayerful we will never again face that kind of tragedy we faced but that they believe this legislation can help provide additional safety and security for their communities and for their fellow citizens?

I see other Senators wish to address the Senate. We have been reminded about how long we have been considering this legislation and how important it is that we do it at the present time.

As the Senator knows, this bill was initially introduced by our former colleague, Senator Mike Dewine, in 1999. The Senate even voted on it in 2002. We had a HELP Committee hearing on this same legislation in the 106th Congress in 2001.

So many of these brave responders have waited for a long time. This has gone on for some 8 years without coming to completion. It is a matter that has been before this body as well during this Congress.

So would the Senator not agree with me, finally, that the time is now to take action? This is the time. We are talking about homeland security; we are talking about first responders; we are talking about those firefighters and police officers. Now is the time to permit them to be fully engaged and involved in further advancing the safety and security of our colleagues.

Would the Senator not agree with me that this is a significant matter that we have full awareness of and knowledge of and should be ready to take action on?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I hope our colleagues have listened carefully to the Senator from Ohio because he has laid out the essential elements of this legislation and did it effectively.

As I mentioned, very often around here we have people who misrepresent or mischaracterize legislation and then differ with it. I have even done it myself a few times. We have seen that done with regard to this legislation.

I listened to my friend and colleague--and he is my friend and colleague--from Tennessee. I watched him wave the Constitution and talk about the tenth amendment, and the Senator from Ohio has answered that.

Does the Senator not agree with me that the basic process that is followed is that if this legislation is passed, a State then must set up some opportunity fulfilling four different requirements that are included in the bill? Those four different requirements that are to provide public service officers

the right to form and join a labor organization; requires the employers to recognize a union that is chosen, require employers to engage in a collective bargaining process, and make available an impasse resolution. As the Senator correctly pointed out, that may very well be arbitration, that may be factfinding. It is completely left open.

Now the State takes these four broad guidelines and fashions legislation. Once Tennessee passes a law, if Tennessee workers say we don't like unions, they don't have to have one. End of the story. I had difficulty in understanding the Senator from Tennessee talk eloquently for half an hour describing this amendment, and I said one of us hasn't read it because there is no such requirement in this legislation as described by the Senator from Tennessee.

I wish the Senator would once again speak to the issue of an unfunded mandate. There is no possibility, as the Senator has mentioned, that there can be any impact on the local community or the State in terms of requiring them to spend a nickel if it isn't going to be approved by the regular order within that State. The State is going to have to make that judgment and that decision whether they want it, but there is nothing included in this legislation that is going to alter that part of the procedure.

As to these concerns we have heard during the course of the afternoon that this new legislation is going to suddenly be an unfunded mandate, I am always interested, if you eliminated the words ``unfunded mandate,'' you would quiet about half the Senate. They use those words so frequently when too often they don't have anything else to say. ``It is an unfunded mandate,'' and everyone quivers and shakes about it. That is the situation.

It is good if we have a debate, and we welcome the opportunity to take some time to debate. We are in no rush. This is important legislation. It is important that the Members understand it, but it is important, it does seem to me, as we are engaging in this debate, for the Members to understand correctly what we are doing and what we are not doing.

I was interested to know if the Senator agrees with me that the bill will not require any town or community in Ohio or any State to expend resources and funds that the State will not duly authorize under its existing appropriations procedures?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, would the Senator not agree with me that the decisionmaking then is going to be done at effectively the local level by workers rather than at the Federal level or even at the State level? The State is going to outline a process. Then the workers are going to make a judgment as to whether they want to follow that process. And if they choose that they will not do it, then there is no process or procedure, and they don't have to do it.

A compelling aspect of this legislation is the fact that we are giving the authority to deal with the most local issues to those who have responsibility today in the local community and who know best in terms of safety and security, and are trained in safety and security-- the first responders.

The record is powerful in this area about how to ensure additional safety and protection for local communities, the State, and the country. We want to make sure that those decisions are made by the workers who have that expertise.

I thank the Senator for his comments because we have heard a good deal of rhetoric on the floor. It is important that we make sure our colleagues have a good understanding and awareness of the great efforts that have been made to make sure we are going to respect the States, we are going to respect, obviously, local communities and the differences that take place, and we are going to have special provisions, as the Senator correctly pointed out, in terms of voluntary fire departments.

We tried to work very carefully and closely--as the Senator has mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort with Senators from all different parts of the country. What is important is that local firefighters, local first responders, local police officers are so strongly in support of this legislation because they understand better than anyone on the floor of this Senate the difference it can make for the safety and security of the American people.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points that have been made during the afternoon. There are some very basic and fundamental points that I think should be made, and that is on the question of the right to choose and the ability for individuals to have that right to choose.

Here on the floor of the Senate, we heard last night from the Senator from Tennessee and at a time here earlier from the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate his kind personal comments. And I join him in paying tribute to my colleague, the Senator from Wyoming.

Although we differ on this legislation, he knows the great respect I have for him as a legislator and the affection I have for him. But there is a difference between a State saying: We are going to deny people the opportunity for collective bargaining, and a State having a process and a procedure in which the people in the State make that judgment and decision. It is similar to the right to vote. Every individual ought to have that right to vote, and if they are not going to use it, that is their judgment and decision, but it is an important enough right to say that we must make it available and allow them to exercise it.

That is what we are saying with this legislation, that a decision dealing with safety and security and a voice on the job for first responders is sufficiently important that workers should have an opportunity to express themselves and decide whether they want collective bargaining. The States themselves, as good as we believe their judgments are, shouldn't get to make that decision for the workers. The States should set up a process and procedure and let the people in the States make that judgment--that is pretty apple pie Americana, to let people make judgments and decisions about matters that are going to make an important difference with regard to safety and security of their jobs and their communities. That is what this is basically about.

So when we hear on the other side: my State made a judgment on it, and we are trying to see another State trying to impose its will on mine, well, I think my friend Senator Brown answered that very well as a general concept, but in particular, it is important to understand what is at the root of this, and that is a process. If this legislation passes, a State has four broad criteria that it must meet, and the Senator from Arizona is correct that if the State does not meet these requirements, then the Federal Labor Relations Authority has to step in and make sure these criteria are met. But if they do meet these basic requirements the Federal Labor Relations Authority would not become involved at all.

The idea that workers are going to be forced to join a union if they don't want one is a scare tactic--and I don't say that in a pejorative way, but just for our membership to understand. We are giving the choice to the workers. We believe those firefighters and first responders can make that judgment. We think it is an important enough decision that affects their lives and the lives of the people they are protecting that they should make it. Then they can make the judgment and decision on what they want in that particular State. If they make the decision that they don't want to have collective bargaining, so be it. But at least they have the possibility of moving ahead in that direction. It is difficult for me to believe that the States would refuse to establish the kind of process and procedure that would make that choice possible.

There are a host of different provisions in the Hatch amendment which have previously been rejected in one form or another. We might go over them briefly tomorrow. But I wanted to point out, in this legislation there is no requirement that workers must use majority sign-up, or card-check. I am a supporter of card check. I think it would open up opportunities for people to speak on the issue of whether they want to organize. But we have not made that judgment in this legislation. That isn't what this legislation is about. It is always interesting to me to hear all the opposition to card check, when we know historically that we used to have card check and it worked very well. Into the l950s, we had it, and we didn't hear a lot of the horror stories that we hear associated with it at this time. But there is not any requirement in this bill about card check. So it is important people understand that.

During the course of the afternoon, I heard a description of this legislation that I could not understand and never would have supported, if the legislation provided that. I hope we can clear up some of these misconceptions. We have had a good discussion on a number of these issues and on a number of others during the course of the afternoon. We will have a chance to go through the Record in more careful detail this evening, and make additional points when that opportunity presents itself.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I don't expect that I will object, but would the Senator withhold that request for a few more minutes?

I am sure we are going to accede to it, but there is something we want to check out.

Please, I appreciate that.

We have no objection, Mr. President.

Mr. President, very quickly, the effect of the Corker amendment would be to gut or undermine the legislation. What we are trying to do is give workers an opportunity to make a judgment about how to proceed. That choice should be made by workers, not the Federal Government, not us here in Washington, DC, not in the State capitols, not the legislatures, but to let the workers, who are on the frontlines--firefighters, police officers, first responders--make the judgments that are going to make a difference in terms of their lives and in terms of their view of what is in the best interests of the safety and security of fellow citizens. This amendment, of course, will undermine that effort.

Finally, I want to review what this legislation does. We have done this a bit earlier today. I wanted to mention exactly what the requirements would be. First, there are four requirements that the States must meet to establish a framework by which the first responders and the firefighters and the police would make a judgment about whether they want a union. There must be a process allowing workers to form or join a union so they can have a voice in important decisions such as safety; they must be allowed to bargain over working conditions with their employers; they must be able to sign legally enforceable contracts; and they must have access to a neutral third party to help resolve disputes. We don't say whether it is arbitration, mediation, factfinding. All of those options are available. At the end of the day, if the workers say: We don't want that, then the issue is settled. But they have the voice. That is at the heart and the soul of this legislation. Do you have sufficient confidence in these individuals to be able to make that judgment. Those 343 extraordinary firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11, should they have had the opportunity to make judgments with regard to their safety and security? Shouldn't they be the individuals who know what is important in terms of safety and security? They weren't failing or flagging in terms of their resolution or their courage. What we are attempting to do is say: They are the knowledgeable people. They are the trained people. They are the ones who know how to improve safety. They should have a voice at the table, if they want one.

All of this about unfunded mandates, all of this about the Federal Labor Relations Authority, all of the language about volunteer firefighters, all of that is useful to talk about but misses the very basic and important element and thrust of this legislation, which is so important in terms of people who work every day to make our communities and our cities in our country safe and secure.

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

Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion today on this legislation. I hope we will have a chance to look over the Record tonight. We have four pending amendments. We understood Members wanted to talk about these measures, and they wanted to give consideration to them. So we will be ready. There is another group of amendments that I believe have been filed, but we are checking with their authors whether they want to call those up. So I think in the totality of things we have made some good progress today.

I understand we will be on this legislation in the mid or late morning tomorrow. We look forward to that opportunity to further respond to questions and to consider other amendments. We would certainly look forward to the authors of these amendments being ready to give consideration to voting on some of these measures. I think they are all--at least the amendments we have seen--pretty straightforward. I have responded to a few this afternoon. We will have a chance to further respond in the morning. But I think we will be prepared to keep the process moving and move ahead. There are matters which should

be discussed and debated. We look forward to that debate and discussion as well tomorrow.

At least now, we have no further speakers on this legislation at this time. I see our friend from Iowa on his feet.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, most of us in Congress know Larry Tribe as the highly regarded expert on constitutional law at Harvard Law School who has been so helpful to us for decades on the many important constitutional issues we often deal with in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

But another side of Larry came to light last month in a very moving front-page article of the ``Scope'' section in the April 16 Shanghai Daily newspaper in China.

Shanghai is Larry's birthplace and he recently returned there for the first time for the Harvard Alumni Association's ``Global Conference in Shanghai.'' He was interviewed by a reporter for the newspaper during the visit.

As the article states, Larry was born in Shanghai in October 1941. His father was a Russian American who had been living in northeastern China where he had met his wife. When war broke out between China and Japan in the 1930s, they moved to Shanghai to be safer, because the city welcomed Jewish refugees. The Japanese occupied Shanghai, however, and after Pearl Harbor, Japanese soldiers arrested Larry's father and held him in a concentration camp because of his American citizenship. Larry and his mother were not allowed to visit him until near the end of the war, and after the war, the family came to the United States.

During those early years in China, Larry attended kindergarten at the Shanghai American school. He remembers that when he finally saw the concentration camp, he was shocked by its harsh conditions, and he says the experience may have influenced his decision years later to become a lawyer involved in fighting for justice and human rights.

As the author of the article, Yan Zhen, writes, ``Who would have thought a frightened little boy who once ran through the streets of Shanghai during World War II would go on to become one of the most revered legal minds in the United States?''

Mr. President, I believe all of us who know and work with Larry Tribe will have even greater respect for him because of this extraordinary part of his life. He truly has lived the American Dream. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the energy challenge and the crisis we face. I look forward to supporting Senator Reid's amendment tomorrow. That amendment has been outlined in great detail during the course of the afternoon. I am in strong support of that amendment.

We are facing a national challenge, and if you look back, historically, when we have been facing a national challenge--and this time is a wartime--not to say all of this crisis is from the war, but whether it is adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or bidding up prices in other parts of the world, it is unconscionable that we have these extraordinary windfall profits that are out of the pockets of working families. And the indifference of this administration to the plight of these working families is appalling.

I applaud our leader for the legislation we will have a chance to vote on tomorrow and, hopefully, we will have a strong vote in support of it. It is inevitable that we are going to be successful because the American people are not going to tolerate the indifference and the extraordinary profiteering that is being experienced in this country at this time. I thank our leader for his efforts and his recommendations to the Senate, and I look forward to voting in support of that tomorrow.

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. 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.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Just on that point, if the Senator is going to represent the legislation, I hope he does it correctly.

We will have a chance to debate. I thought the Senator was representing that this legislation permitted the option of striking. It does no such thing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the floor privileges be extended to Paul Hazlehurst and Brian Kelliher, two detailees of my staff, for the remainder of the 110th Congress.

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

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.

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.