Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act along with my colleague Senator Rod Grams from Minnesota. This bipartisan legislation would authorize the U.S. Mint to issue a coin jointly with the Icelandic National Bank in commemoration of Leif Ericson and his voyage and exploration of North America. The famous Viking explorer is regarded as the first European to set foot on North American soil in the year 1000 AD. Next year marks the 1000th anniversary of Leif Ericson's Voyage of Discovery and this coin will commemorate this landmark event in North American history. This same legislation passed the House on July 19, 1999, and passed both the House and the Senate as amendments during the 105th Congress. The Government of Iceland is an important North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally and this action would reiterate our strong relationship with and support for their nation. Iceland votes with the United States on virtually all United Nations and NATO issues and has formulated foreign policies parallel to ours. They also are cutting costs at our military base in Keflavi. Iceland has refrained from whaling, encouraged more U.S. trade and investment and initiated a partnership with the State of Alaska. The Government of Iceland has already approved a silver 1000 Kronor Icelandic coin to be produced by the U.S. Mint that will be packaged and issued simultaneously with the U.S. Leif Ericson Commemorative Coin. We believe jointly issuing these coins will help further relations between our nations. Mr. President, the United States Congress strengthened United States- Icelandic relations by presenting a Leif Ericson statue as a gift to Iceland in 1930 as a gesture of memorializing Ericson's Voyage of Discovery. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson made October 9 ``Leif Ericson Day'' in commemoration of this famous Norwegian Viking explorer. The Leif Ericson Commemorative Coin in the year 2000 would commemorate the millennial anniversary of Ericson's voyage and would display our commitment to continuing this relationship for the coming millennium. Mr. President, the Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act allows a simultaneous issuance of a commemorative U.S. silver dollar coin and a silver 1000 Kroner Icelandic coin. Both coins are to be produced in limited mintages, with U.S. Mint issuing a boxed set. Mint and surcharge proceeds from the coins will fund scholarships and student exchange programs between Iceland and United States. The U.S. Mint has read and approved the identical House version as meeting all the guidelines contained in the 1995 Congressional House Banking Committee Commemorative Coins Reforms Act, which protects the taxpayer from any costs. We feel such a coin is an important step in recognizing the important role Iceland has played in North American history. In the coming days, I will be talking to my colleagues in joining me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent for a copy of this bill to be included in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am pleased that the Labor HHS Appropriations bill contains language to provide for a multistate dental sealant demonstration project. I feel that the Maternal Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration will be the most appropriate entity to conduct a quality demonstration program. I concur with the Senator from New Mexico that this amount seems reasonable.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield such time as he may want to the majority whip.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Robb and I have an amendment at the desk. I call it up at this time, No. 1845.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Robb and I are going to take a few minutes. I know the time is late. I know people want to get to a final vote on this. I want to talk about how good this bill is and to urge people to vote for it. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I will not go through the whole thing. It basically is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying Congress should appropriate at least $3.7 billion in Federal resources to help communities leverage funds to modernize public school facilities, otherwise known as public school construction. What we have in this country is schools that are on the average 40 to 50 years old. We are getting great teachers, new methodologies, new math, new science, new reading programs, and the schools are crumbling down around us. They are getting older every day. Day after day, kids go to schools with leaky ceilings, inadequate heat, inadequate air conditioning for hot summer days and the fall when the school year is extended. They are finding a lot of these buildings still have asbestos in them, and it needs to be taken out. Yet we are shirking our responsibilities to refurbish, renovate, and rebuild the schools in this country. The General Accounting Office estimates 14 million American children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate. They estimate it will cost $112 billion to upgrade existing public schools to just ``good'' condition. In addition, the GAO reports 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. We want to get computers in the classrooms, we want to hook them to the Internet, and yet almost 50 percent of the schools in this country are inadequate in their internal wiring so kids cannot hook up with the Internet. The American Society of Civil Engineers reports public schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national infrastructure. Think about that. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers--they are the ones who build our buildings, build our bridges and roads and highways and streets and sewers and water systems, and our schools--they say our schools are in the worst state of any part of the physical infrastructure of this country.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the nicest things our kids ever see or go to is shopping malls and sports arenas and movie theaters, and the most run-down places are their schools, what kind of signal are we sending them about the value we place on education and their future? This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which simply outlines the terrible situation we have in this country and calls on the Senate and the Congress to respond by providing at least $3.7 billion, a small fraction of what is needed but a step in the right direction--$3.7 billion in Federal resources to modernize our Nation's schools. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague and cosponsor, Senator Robb.

Mr. HARKIN. Are we in our 10 minutes of time on which we had a unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for all of his support and his help and great work in moving this bill along. We appreciate it very much. We have had a good debate, a long debate, a good exchange of amendments on this bill. We have had amendments that have been approved and rejected on both sides of the aisle. I thank and commend my chairman, Senator Specter, for his leadership, his skill, and his persistence, his dogged persistence in managing this bill and getting it through. Senator Specter had tried time and time again during the long, hot, dog days of summer and coming into this fall, never giving up, always pushing us to get this bill up and get it through. Again, I commend him and thank him for his leadership and also thank Senator Specter and his staff for always working closely with us. I can honestly say that at no time were we ever surprised about anything. We have had a very good working relationship. We may not have always agreed on everything--that is the nature of things around here-- but we always had a good, open, fair, and thoughtful relationship. I appreciate that very much on the part of my chairman. This is always the toughest appropriations bill to get through. It was tough when I was chairman and Senator Specter was ranking member. Things have not changed a bit. This year was a greater challenge than ever. But I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we have produced a very good bill--not just a good bill, a very good bill. It is not perfect. Maybe there are some things I would like to have seen different. Perhaps we can improve it a little bit in conference. But it is a very good bill. Let me just give a few of the highlights of what we were able to accomplish in this bill: First of all, an overall increase of $4 billion over last year; a $2.2 billion increase for education programs. That is $500 million more than the President asked for. So if anyone says we did not take care of education, they do not know what they are talking about, and I say that in all candor; $500 million more than what the President asked for. A $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health--$2 billion last year, $2 billion this year, keeping our promised goal of doubling NIH funding in 5 years. We have had a very important increase for community health centers, a $100 million increase for community health centers. Community health centers in rural areas and in some of our poorer areas of this country are the health care system for a lot of poor people in our country, and they are doing a great job. This bill has a $100 million increase for community health centers. We maintain the funding for all the job training and worker protection provisions in the Department of Labor. We have over a $600 million increase for Head Start. Maybe I would like to see a little bit more, but it is good progress. We are moving in the right direction towards getting all 4-year-olds covered in Head Start programs. The Dodd amendment almost doubles the child care development block grant to $2 billion for child care. That is very important. We double the funding for afterschool programs. Again, I know how strongly Senator Specter feels about this. He authored a bill, the youth antiviolence bill, of which I am a cosponsor, taking care of these kids after school. We doubled from $200 million to $400 million the afterschool programs. We raised the maximum Pell grant from $3,150 to $3,325, the highest it has ever been. Let me cut to the quick. I know many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have signed a letter expressing their concern over the lack of authorization of reducing class size. We have the money in there for it, but we do not have the authorization. As I have said repeatedly, reducing class size is critical. I am personally disappointed that Senator Murray's amendment was not adopted. But I want to be very clear, though, that there is absolutely no inconsistency with signing that letter and voting for passage of this bill. We vote to send bills with problematic issues to conference all the time around here. Maybe there is one little thing we do not agree with, but overall we agree with the major thrust of the bill, and we send it to conference. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. We should send it to conference. If you are concerned about class size, the best and quickest way to have those concerns resolved is to vote the bill out and send it to conference. We will have a chance there to make improvements. If you still have problems after that, you can vote against the conference report. But this bill is too important to the health, the well-being, and the education of the American people to kill it on the Senate floor. Everyone who votes for this bill can be proud of their vote, proud of the investments that we have made in the human infrastructure of this country. Lastly, people have said there are a lot of gimmicks in this bill. There are no gimmicks in this bill. We advance funds because of the unique way that education is funded in this country. We do not pay it out until the next year anyway. So there are no gimmicks in this bill. This is straightforward. This is a sound bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Again, I thank Senator Specter, his staff: Bettilou Taylor, Jim Sourwine, Mary Dietrich, Kevin Johnson, Mark Laisch, Jack Chow, and Aura Dunn for all of their hard work. I also thank my minority staff: Ellen Murray and Jane Daye; also my personal staff: Bev Schroeder on education; Chani Wiggins on labor; Sabrina Corlette on health; Katie Corrigan on disabilities; Rosemary Gutierrez on child labor; and, of course, my outstanding leader, legislative director, Peter Reinecke, for all of his hard work. So again I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to give this bill their ``yes'' vote and send it to conference resoundingly because it is a good bill, and it is good for America. I ask unanimous consent that several letters in support of passage of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand this amendment is not acceptable to the other side. It is late in the day. I know people have to get on with other things, and we want to get to a final vote on the bill. I believe strongly in this. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Also, Senators Kennedy, Reid, Murray, and Johnson are added as cosponsors. In the spirit of moving this bill along and trying to wrap this up as quickly as possible, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time, but it will be revisited.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to add my voice in support of the comments expressed by my colleagues from South Dakota, Alaska and Pennsylvania. FAS and FAE are 100 percent preventable. Our country should be doing everything it can to put an end to alcohol-related birth defects and help individuals and families trying to copy with the disease. idea funding at nih

Mr. HARKIN. I am very concerned about the proposed $70 million funding cut to the Medicare Integrity Program (MIP) approved by the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate has recommended that MIP be funded at $630 million, the amount authorized in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). In 1998, Medicare contractors saved the Medicare Trust Fund nearly $9 billion in inappropriate payments--about $17 for every dollar invested. Any funding cut to MIP is tantamount to the government throwing money out the window. In fact, I believe, because of the tremendous need to reduce an estimated $13 billion in Medicare waste, we should increase MIP funding. Therefore, I will work hard to ensure that the Senate funding level for this important program is not compromised.

Mr. HARKIN. I have long supported the work of the Iowa-Nebraska Primary Care Association and specific community health centers in the Midwest. These providers serve as models for effectively and efficiently providing access and quality care to under-served populations. I will also support full and fair consideration of the Indian-Chicano Health Center proposal. The Maryland Children's Health Insurance Program

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

Mr. HARKIN. I, too, am aware of the Child Health Institute request for assistance and share Senator Specter's views on this matter.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to add my support to the comments that have been made here. I, too, feel strongly that additional funding for vocational education is urgently warranted, and I will do what I can as the ranking member on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee to direct more resources to basic state grants in this area. Will the Chairman of the Subcommittee also join me in this effort?

Mr. HARKIN. I too agree that the FY 2001 budget will address this issue. vocational education

Mr. HARKIN. I thank you Senator Cleland for clarifying the funding needs for the CDC building infrastructure. We will continue to seek ways to provide funding to adequately bring the CDC physical plant to not only meet standard safety levels, but to exceed those levels. We have an obligation to maintain this world renowned institution and to facilitate its ability to attract highly skilled scientists, provide a safe environment for the research of highly pathogenic organisms and to fulfill its intended objectives.

Mr. HARKIN. I strongly believe that NIH should respond to the recommendations in this ORWH report and examine this problem as soon as possible. cdc funding

Mr. HARKIN. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee I want to express my strong support for substantially increasing NIH support for Parkinson's research. We have a tremendous opportunity for real break through in the fight against this horrible disease and we cannot pass that up.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend from Missouri and the Chairman of the Small Business Committee. I heard not all but most of the opening comments by the offerer of the amendment, Senator Bond. What I heard mostly was the concerns expressed by Senator Bond regarding its impact on small businesses. While I happen to serve on the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond is the chairman of that committee. It goes without saying that Senator Bond has had a long and intense interest in the impact of rules and regulations on small businesses. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Senator Bond has done a very good job in protecting and defending the rights of small businesses. Quite frankly, I believe I have, too, and others on the committee. I can understand Senator Bond's concern, legitimate concern about what would happen with the small businesses. In that regard, I support his thrust in terms of making sure that we do not impact unduly on small businesses and that we fulfill our obligation to ensure that small businesses get the support whatever it might be, to help change and redesign a workplace that would be injurious to workers suffering from ergonomic types of illnesses. To say that it would have an impact on small businesses does not mean we can't do anything about it because I think we have an obligation to protect the health and the safety and the welfare of the workers of this country. Whether they work for IBM or General Motors or whether they work for a small concern that employs five people, I believe we have an obligation to be concerned about their health and their safety. Obviously, we also have an obligation to be concerned about the small businesses in this country. That is why I say, to the extent we can, we better be prepared to help small businesses to cut down on the illnesses and injuries to workers from musculoskeletal disorders and the results of ergonomic illnesses. So again, I hope this is not just the reason someone might vote against this, because of the impact on small businesses; think about the impact on the workers, what is happening to workers out there. I would also like to point out that if a small business has no workers with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), is not in manufacturing and does not have workers with significant handling duties, that small business doesn't have to do a thing. Millions of small businesses (drycleaners, banks, advertising agencies, shoe repair) will have no obligation to comply unless a worker gets hurt. Then let us have a meeting of the minds to do both. Let's protect our workers, and then meet our obligation to help small businesses. It seems to me this is the way to go. I know the Senator from Illinois has been waiting to speak, but let me also comment upon the fact that Senator Bond had said something about women-owned businesses, that women-owned businesses will be at risk. Quite frankly, women are at risk. Here is a study done on ergonomics, called A Women's Issue, from the Department of Labor. The title says: Who is at Risk? Women experienced 33 percent of all serious workplace injuries--those who required time off of work--in 1997, but they suffered 63 percent of repetitive motion injuries, including 91 percent of injuries resulting from repetitive typing or keying and 61 percent from repetitive placing. Women experienced 62 percent of work-related cases of tendonitis and 70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases. So this is a women's issue. It is women who are suffering more from repetitive injury diseases and illnesses than men are. We should keep that in mind. Secondly, we hear about doing a study and that we shouldn't promulgate or have these rules prior to the study being done. Well, first of all, for the record, there is no new study being done. The study being done by the National Academy of Sciences, which is referred to often, is just a study or a review of existing literature. They are not conducting any new research. All of the literature being reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences is already available to OSHA. The study the NAS is doing is a review of all the existing studies. We have studied this issue to death. There have been more than 2,000 ergonomic studies, and there have been 600 epidemiological studies done on ergonomics. We have more than enough information to move ahead in protecting workers. The study we keep hearing about is simply a study of all the studies. Let us keep that in mind. We have been a long time in this rulemaking process. We have had over 8 years of study. I think it is well to note, too, the first Secretary of Labor who committed the agency to issuing an ergonomic standard. It was then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, who committed the agency to issuing an ergonomic standard. We have been studying it ever since. Also, keep in mind, no rule has been issued, not even a proposed rule. Again, that is all we are talking about, letting OSHA go ahead with a proposed rule. That is not the end of it. Once the proposal is issued, the public, people on all sides of the debate will have ample opportunity to comment on the proposal. Lastly, this really does kind of break the agreement we had last year. Our word is our bond around this place. If we don't keep our word, this place disintegrates. Last year, we had an agreement made with the House Members, Congressman Livingston, who at that time was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and David Obey, who was the ranking member. They signed a letter dated October 19, 1998. What they said was: We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics. It was signed by Chairman Livingston and ranking member Obey. I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. Obviously, we are on an appropriations bill. I was involved in the discussions on that last year. The agreement was made to go ahead and let the National Academy of Sciences do a review--that is all it is; it is not a new study--of the studies that have already been done. Let's keep that in mind; this is not a new study. During that time, OSHA was not prevented from going ahead and issuing a proposed rule-- not a final rule, a proposed rule, which I have pointed out, then, allows everyone to have their input and allows us in Congress to see it. Again, people talked about this study, and we had this agreement. We should live up to the agreement. They talk about the cost. Here is a whole packet--I will have them here if anybody wants to read them--of ergonomic changes made by companies, both large and small, to help reduce the significance and the number of injuries. These are what companies on their own did. One caught my eye. This is from Sun Microsystems. They make computer equipment and systems in California. Problem: In 1993, the average work-related musculoskeletal disorder disability claim was $45,000 to $55,000. The solution: Sun Microsystems purchased ergonomic chairs and provided education and work station assessments to all who requested them. The company also encouraged workers to adopt proper posture while working with computers. The impact: The average repetitive-strain-injury-related claim dropped from $45,000 to $55,000 in 1993 to $3,500 in 1997. Does it work? Yes, it does. It works well. We ought to get on with it. Let OSHA issue their proposed rule. These delays hurt workers. More than 600,000 workers lose work each year because of ergonomic-related injuries. These are our cashiers, nurses, cleaning staff, assembly workers in manufacturing and processing plants, computer users, clerical staff, truck drivers, and meat cutters. This amendment should be defeated because the workers of this country deserve to have their health and their safety protected. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I compliment him on this amendment. There is all this talk going around about across-the-board cuts. We just had the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma which he withdrew. As you can see, there is some sentiment on the other side of the aisle to have some across-the-board cuts. Again, we have tried to resist those because, as the Senator from Massachusetts said so eloquently, there are a lot of people out there who could be drastically hurt--low-income people, needy people, seniors, veterans, and others. What this amendment addresses is the education end of it. Both sides of the aisle have said time and time again that education is our No. 1 priority. The leader said that earlier this year. Both sides have been saying education is our No. 1 priority. What this amendment basically says is, as I understand it, if there is going to be any across-the- board cut--and there shouldn't be because we have plenty of offsets; we don't need an across-the-board cut--if there is an across-the-board cut, we will exempt education, only education, including IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, title I, and Pell grants. What the Nickles amendment would have done--again, it is sort of rolling around out there about an across-the-board cut--CBO said the Nickles amendment would translate into a 5. 5-percent cut. For title I, that would be a $380 million cut. OMB said it would be as much as a 10- percent cut. That would be $800 million. So somewhere between a $380 and a $800 million cut in title I. Afterschool programs would be cut $20 to $40 million; ed technology, $35 to $70 million; and special education would be cut from $300 to $600 million, if, in fact we had an across-the-board cut. Again, I urge Senators to vote for this amendment because it will send a signal, loudly and clearly, that if there are any across-the- board cuts, we are not going to take it out of education. We understand that education is our No. 1 priority. We understand we have to invest in education. The last thing we want to be included in any kind of across-the-board cut would be any cuts in education. I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts. This is a great amendment. This ought to receive a 100-0 vote to protect education from any across-the-board cuts. I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am going to get to where we can get the money so we can have the offsets, so we don't have--