Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Since 1980, the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of American families has increased by 72 percent. The income of the poorest fifth of American families has declined by 16 percent. If the Republican tax bill becomes law, corporate limousines will line up in front of the Capitol with their trunks open. The top 1 percent will haul the money away in the trunks of their limousines. I have always said there is nothing wrong with making money in America. There is nothing wrong with being rich. There is nothing wrong with having a nicer house, a bigger car, and all the better amenities of life. That is a big part of the American dream. But I believe when you make it to the top, and others make it to the top, and I make it to the top, it is the responsibility of Government to make sure we leave the ladder down there for others to climb, too. The Republican tax bill, basically, says to the wealthy in this country: You have it made. Don't worry about anybody else. You made it to the top. Now you can pull up the ladder behind you and we are going to help you. The Government will help you pull the ladder up behind you. President Clinton has talked often about the bridge to the 21st century, and we have a good construct of it: Unemployment is low, GNP is going up, debt is going down. But if only a few people cross that bridge, it will become a dividing line. That is why we don't need this tax bill. We need to bring people together, not divide us even more, as this tax bill would do.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Hollings, Senator Biden, and Senator Graham an important piece of legislation that will help to protect and preserve Medicare. The bill is entitled the Medicare Waste Tax Reduction Act of 1999. For over ten years now, I have worked to combat fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare program. As Chairman and now Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee with oversight of the administration of Medicare, I've held hearing after hearing and released report after report documenting the extent of this problem. While virtually no one was paying attention to our effort for many years, we've succeeded in bringing greater attention and focus to this problem in recent years. Part of our effort has been to try to quantify the scope of the problem. Several years ago, the General Accounting Office reported that up to 10 percent of Medicare funds could be lost to fraud, waste and abuse each year. Many questioned that estimate as too large. They said the problem existed, but it wasn't nearly as big as 10 percent. A few years ago, the Inspector General conducted the first-ever detailed audit of Medicare payments. That Chief Financial Officer Act audit found that fully 14 percent of Medicare payments in 1996, or over $23 billion, had been made improperly. To combat these substantial losses, we have put into place the reforms embodied in the Health Insurance Portability Act and the Balanced Budget Act. HCFA, the Inspector General and the Justice Department also have continued to aggressively use new authority to crack down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. As a result, we have seen a dramatic decrease in these improper payments. According to the most recent Inspector General's report, improper payments had been reduced from $23.2 billion in 1996, to $20.3 billion in 1997, to $12.6 billion in 1998. While I am very pleased with the successful efforts so far in combating fraud, waste, and abuse, that still amounts to a nearly $13 billion annual ``waste tax'' on the American people. Now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We must now question, what is the best way to move forward and further cut this tax. I know there are no ``magic- wand'' solutions--this is a complex problem with many components. But basically, you need four things: well thought out laws, adequate resources, effective implementation and the help of seniors and health providers. We've made progress on each of these fronts over the last couple of years, but much more remains to be done. Mr. President, we have many thousands of dedicated health providers who work very hard to improve the quality of life for all people. Through their efforts, Americans have the best quality health care in the world. But, unfortunately, there are a small minority of providers who take advantage of our health care system. This legislation is directly designed to deal with those situations. Further, it is clear that many mispayments to Medicare are the result of a simple lack of understanding of our often complex Medicare payment system. This legislation also addresses this problem by providing increased education and assistance for providers and by reducing the paperwork and administrative hassles that can often lead to innocent, but costly, billing errors. The primary goal of this legislation is simply this--to ensure that Medicare pays for all that it should pay for--and only what it should pay for. The Medicare Waste Tax Reduction Act I am introducing today will take a number of important steps to stop the continued ravaging of Medicare. This Bill for example, would direct HCFA to double and better target audits and reviews to detect and discourage mispayments. Currently only a tiny fraction of Medicare claims are reviewed before being paid and less than 2 percent of providers receive a comprehensive audit annually. We must have the ability to separate needed care from bill padding and abuse. Our bill would also give Medicare the authority to be a more prudent purchaser. As passed by the Senate, the Balanced Budget Act gave Medicare the authority to quickly reduce Part B payment rates (except those made for physician services) it finds to be grossly excessive when compared to rates paid by other government programs and the private sector. In conference, the provision was limited to reductions of no more than 15 percent. This bill would restore the original Senate language. In addition, to assure that Medicare gets the price it deserves given its status as by far the largest purchaser of medical supplies and equipment, Medicare would pay no more than any other government program for these items. Finally, overpayments for prescription drugs and biologicals would be eliminated by lowering Medicare's rate to the lowest of either the actual acquisition cost or 83% of the wholesale cost. Our bill would also give the Secretary of Health and Human Services greater flexibility in contracting for claims processing and payment functions on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries and providers. It would update Medicare contracting procedures and bring it more in line with standard contracting procedures already used across the Federal Government and therefore allow Medicare the ability to get much better value for its contracting dollars. The Medicare Waste Tax reduction Act of 1999 would also ensure that Medicare does not pay for claims owed by other plans. Too often, Medicare pays claims that are owed by private insurers because it has no way of knowing a beneficiary is working and has private insurance that should pay first. This provision would reduce Medicare losses by requiring insurers to report any Medicare beneficiaries they insure. Also, Medicare would be given the authority to recover double the amount owed by insurers who purposely let Medicare pay claims they should have paid. Additionally, coordination between Medicare and private insurers would be strengthened. Often, those ripping off Medicare are also defrauding private health plans. Yet, too little information on fraud cases is shared between Medicare and private plans. In order to encourage better coordination, health plans and their employees could not be held liable for sharing information with Medicare regarding health care fraud as long as the information is not false, or the person providing the information had no reason to believe the information was false. Our bill would also expand the Medicare Senior Waste Patrol Nationwide. Seniors are our front line of defense against Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. However, too often, seniors don't have the information they need to detect and report suspected mistakes and fraud. By moving the Waste Patrol nationwide, implementing important BBA provisions and assuring seniors have access to itemized bills we will strike an important blow to Medicare waste. Another critical component of any successful comprehensive plan to cut the Medicare waste tax is to focus on prevention. Most of our efforts now look at finding and rectifying the problems after they occur. While this is important and we need to do even more of it, we all know that prevention is much more cost effective. The old adage ``A stitch in time saves nine'' was never more true. A major component of an enhanced prevention effort would be the provision of increased assistance and education for providers to comply with Medicare rules. Further, a great deal of the mis-payments made by Medicare are the result not of fraud or abuse, but of simple misunderstanding of Medicare billing rules by providers. Therefore, this bill provides $10 million a year to fund a major expansion of assistance and education for providers on program integrity requirements. This bill would also ensure the reduction of paperwork and administrative hassle that could prove daunting to providers. Health professionals have to spend too much time completing paperwork and dealing with administrative hassles associated with Medicare and private health plans. In order to reduce this hassle and provide more time for patient care, the Institute of Medicine would be charged with developing a comprehensive plan by no later than June 1, 2000. Their recommendations are to include the streamlining of variations between Medicare and other payers. Mr. President, while we have made changes to medicare in attempts to extend its solvency thru the next decade, we urgently need to take other steps to protect and preserve the program for the long-term. We should enact the reforms in this bill to weed out waste, fraud and abuse as a first priority in this effort. I urge all my colleagues to review this proposal and hope that they will join me in working to pass it yet this year. Mr President, I also ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Hollings, Senator Biden, and Senator Graham an important piece of legislation that will help to protect and preserve Medicare. The bill is entitled the Medicare Waste Tax Reduction Act of 1999. For over ten years now, I have worked to combat fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare program. As Chairman and now Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee with oversight of the administration of Medicare, I've held hearing after hearing and released report after report documenting the extent of this problem. While virtually no one was paying attention to our effort for many years, we've succeeded in bringing greater attention and focus to this problem in recent years. Part of our effort has been to try to quantify the scope of the problem. Several years ago, the General Accounting Office reported that up to 10 percent of Medicare funds could be lost to fraud, waste and abuse each year. Many questioned that estimate as too large. They said the problem existed, but it wasn't nearly as big as 10 percent. A few years ago, the Inspector General conducted the first-ever detailed audit of Medicare payments. That Chief Financial Officer Act audit found that fully 14 percent of Medicare payments in 1996, or over $23 billion, had been made improperly. To combat these substantial losses, we have put into place the reforms embodied in the Health Insurance Portability Act and the Balanced Budget Act. HCFA, the Inspector General and the Justice Department also have continued to aggressively use new authority to crack down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. As a result, we have seen a dramatic decrease in these improper payments. According to the most recent Inspector General's report, improper payments had been reduced from $23.2 billion in 1996, to $20.3 billion in 1997, to $12.6 billion in 1998. While I am very pleased with the successful efforts so far in combating fraud, waste, and abuse, that still amounts to a nearly $13 billion annual ``waste tax'' on the American people. Now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We must now question, what is the best way to move forward and further cut this tax. I know there are no ``magic- wand'' solutions--this is a complex problem with many components. But basically, you need four things: well thought out laws, adequate resources, effective implementation and the help of seniors and health providers. We've made progress on each of these fronts over the last couple of years, but much more remains to be done. Mr. President, we have many thousands of dedicated health providers who work very hard to improve the quality of life for all people. Through their efforts, Americans have the best quality health care in the world. But, unfortunately, there are a small minority of providers who take advantage of our health care system. This legislation is directly designed to deal with those situations. Further, it is clear that many mispayments to Medicare are the result of a simple lack of understanding of our often complex Medicare payment system. This legislation also addresses this problem by providing increased education and assistance for providers and by reducing the paperwork and administrative hassles that can often lead to innocent, but costly, billing errors. The primary goal of this legislation is simply this--to ensure that Medicare pays for all that it should pay for--and only what it should pay for. The Medicare Waste Tax Reduction Act I am introducing today will take a number of important steps to stop the continued ravaging of Medicare. This Bill for example, would direct HCFA to double and better target audits and reviews to detect and discourage mispayments. Currently only a tiny fraction of Medicare claims are reviewed before being paid and less than 2 percent of providers receive a comprehensive audit annually. We must have the ability to separate needed care from bill padding and abuse. Our bill would also give Medicare the authority to be a more prudent purchaser. As passed by the Senate, the Balanced Budget Act gave Medicare the authority to quickly reduce Part B payment rates (except those made for physician services) it finds to be grossly excessive when compared to rates paid by other government programs and the private sector. In conference, the provision was limited to reductions of no more than 15 percent. This bill would restore the original Senate language. In addition, to assure that Medicare gets the price it deserves given its status as by far the largest purchaser of medical supplies and equipment, Medicare would pay no more than any other government program for these items. Finally, overpayments for prescription drugs and biologicals would be eliminated by lowering Medicare's rate to the lowest of either the actual acquisition cost or 83% of the wholesale cost. Our bill would also give the Secretary of Health and Human Services greater flexibility in contracting for claims processing and payment functions on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries and providers. It would update Medicare contracting procedures and bring it more in line with standard contracting procedures already used across the Federal Government and therefore allow Medicare the ability to get much better value for its contracting dollars. The Medicare Waste Tax reduction Act of 1999 would also ensure that Medicare does not pay for claims owed by other plans. Too often, Medicare pays claims that are owed by private insurers because it has no way of knowing a beneficiary is working and has private insurance that should pay first. This provision would reduce Medicare losses by requiring insurers to report any Medicare beneficiaries they insure. Also, Medicare would be given the authority to recover double the amount owed by insurers who purposely let Medicare pay claims they should have paid. Additionally, coordination between Medicare and private insurers would be strengthened. Often, those ripping off Medicare are also defrauding private health plans. Yet, too little information on fraud cases is shared between Medicare and private plans. In order to encourage better coordination, health plans and their employees could not be held liable for sharing information with Medicare regarding health care fraud as long as the information is not false, or the person providing the information had no reason to believe the information was false. Our bill would also expand the Medicare Senior Waste Patrol Nationwide. Seniors are our front line of defense against Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. However, too often, seniors don't have the information they need to detect and report suspected mistakes and fraud. By moving the Waste Patrol nationwide, implementing important BBA provisions and assuring seniors have access to itemized bills we will strike an important blow to Medicare waste. Another critical component of any successful comprehensive plan to cut the Medicare waste tax is to focus on prevention. Most of our efforts now look at finding and rectifying the problems after they occur. While this is important and we need to do even more of it, we all know that prevention is much more cost effective. The old adage ``A stitch in time saves nine'' was never more true. A major component of an enhanced prevention effort would be the provision of increased assistance and education for providers to comply with Medicare rules. Further, a great deal of the mis-payments made by Medicare are the result not of fraud or abuse, but of simple misunderstanding of Medicare billing rules by providers. Therefore, this bill provides $10 million a year to fund a major expansion of assistance and education for providers on program integrity requirements. This bill would also ensure the reduction of paperwork and administrative hassle that could prove daunting to providers. Health professionals have to spend too much time completing paperwork and dealing with administrative hassles associated with Medicare and private health plans. In order to reduce this hassle and provide more time for patient care, the Institute of Medicine would be charged with developing a comprehensive plan by no later than June 1, 2000. Their recommendations are to include the streamlining of variations between Medicare and other payers. Mr. President, while we have made changes to medicare in attempts to extend its solvency thru the next decade, we urgently need to take other steps to protect and preserve the program for the long-term. We should enact the reforms in this bill to weed out waste, fraud and abuse as a first priority in this effort. I urge all my colleagues to review this proposal and hope that they will join me in working to pass it yet this year. Mr President, I also ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr President, in April, the nation was rocked by an unspeakable act of violence at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Twelve innocent students, a heroic teacher and the two student gunmen were killed in the 8th deadly school shooting in 39 months. Since that tragic incident, there has been a nation wide discussion on the causes of such violence and a search for solutions to prevent such occurrences in the future. I would like to take a few moments to discuss one innovative program that can help us prevent violent acts from happening in the first place. Mr. President, children today are subjected to unprecedented social stresses, including the fragmentation of the family, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, child abuse and poverty. In 1988, the Des Moines Independent School District recognized the situation confronting young students and expanded counseling services in elementary schools. The expanded counseling program-- Smoother Sailing operates on the simple premise that we must get to kids early to prevent problems rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the district more than tripled the number of elementary school counselors to make sure that at least one well-trained professional is available in every single elementary school building. Smoother Sailing began as a pilot program in 10 elementary schools. The program increased the number of counselors in the elementary schools so there is one counselor for every 250 students--the ratio recommended for an effective program. The participating schools began seeing many positive changes. After two years, the schools participating in Smoother Sailing saw a dramatic reduction in the number of students referred to the office for disciplinary reasons. During the 1987-88 school year, 157 students were referred to the office for disciplinary action. After two years of Smoother Sailing, the number of office referrals in those schools dropped to 83--a 47% reduction in office referrals. During the same period, Des Moines elementary schools with a traditional crisis intervention counseling program had only a 21% reduction in office referrals. There were other changes as well. Teachers in Smoother Sailing schools reported fewer classroom disturbances and principals noticed fewer fights in the cafeteria and on the playground. The schools and classrooms had become more disciplined learning environments. It was clear that Smoother Sailing was making a difference so the counseling program was expanded to all 42 elementary schools in Des Moines in 1990. Smoother Sailing continues to be a success. Smoother Sailing helps students solve problems in a positive manner. Assessments of 4th and 5th grade students show that students can generate more than one solution to a problem. Further, the types of solutions were positive and proactive. We know that the ability to effectively solve problems is essential for helping students make the right decisions when confronted with violence or drugs. Smoother Sailing gets high marks in surveys of administrators, teachers and parents. They report a high degree of satisfaction with the program. Ninety-five percent of parents surveyed said the counselor is a valuable part of my child's educational development. Ninety-three percent said they would seek assistance from the counselor if the child was experiencing difficulties at school. Administrators credit Smoother Sailing with decreasing the number of student suspensions and referrals to the office for disciplinary action. In addition, principals report that the program is responsible for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Experts tell us that to be effective, there should be at least one counselor for every 250 students. Unfortunately, the current student:counselor ratio is more than double the recommended level--it is 531:1. That means counselors are stretched to the limit and cannot devote the kind of attention to children that is needed. In most schools, the majority of counselors are employed at the middle and secondary levels. Therefore, the situation is more acute in elementary schools where the student to counselor ratio is greater than 1000:1. Mr. President, Smoother Sailing was the model for the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act, a section of the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Today, along with Senators Lincoln and Wellstone, I am introducing the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation does three things. First, it reauthorizes the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act and expands services to secondary schools. Second, it authorizes $100 million in funding to hire school counselors, school psychologists and school social workers. Finally, since the counselor shortage is particularly acute in elementary schools, the amendment requires that the first $60 million appropriated would go to provide grants for elementary schools. Mr. President, CNN and USA Today recently conducted a public opinion poll of Americans. They asked what would make a difference in preventing a future outbreak of violence in our nation's schools. The leading response was to restrict access to firearms. The second most popular response--a response selected by 60% of those polled--was to increase the number of counselors in our nation's schools. We should heed the advice of the American people. We have a desperate need to improve counseling services in our nation's schools and this legislation will be an important step in addressing this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This legislation is supported by several organizations--the American Counseling Association, the American School Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the School of Social Work Association of America and the National Association of Social Workers. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr President, in April, the nation was rocked by an unspeakable act of violence at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Twelve innocent students, a heroic teacher and the two student gunmen were killed in the 8th deadly school shooting in 39 months. Since that tragic incident, there has been a nation wide discussion on the causes of such violence and a search for solutions to prevent such occurrences in the future. I would like to take a few moments to discuss one innovative program that can help us prevent violent acts from happening in the first place. Mr. President, children today are subjected to unprecedented social stresses, including the fragmentation of the family, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, child abuse and poverty. In 1988, the Des Moines Independent School District recognized the situation confronting young students and expanded counseling services in elementary schools. The expanded counseling program-- Smoother Sailing operates on the simple premise that we must get to kids early to prevent problems rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the district more than tripled the number of elementary school counselors to make sure that at least one well-trained professional is available in every single elementary school building. Smoother Sailing began as a pilot program in 10 elementary schools. The program increased the number of counselors in the elementary schools so there is one counselor for every 250 students--the ratio recommended for an effective program. The participating schools began seeing many positive changes. After two years, the schools participating in Smoother Sailing saw a dramatic reduction in the number of students referred to the office for disciplinary reasons. During the 1987-88 school year, 157 students were referred to the office for disciplinary action. After two years of Smoother Sailing, the number of office referrals in those schools dropped to 83--a 47% reduction in office referrals. During the same period, Des Moines elementary schools with a traditional crisis intervention counseling program had only a 21% reduction in office referrals. There were other changes as well. Teachers in Smoother Sailing schools reported fewer classroom disturbances and principals noticed fewer fights in the cafeteria and on the playground. The schools and classrooms had become more disciplined learning environments. It was clear that Smoother Sailing was making a difference so the counseling program was expanded to all 42 elementary schools in Des Moines in 1990. Smoother Sailing continues to be a success. Smoother Sailing helps students solve problems in a positive manner. Assessments of 4th and 5th grade students show that students can generate more than one solution to a problem. Further, the types of solutions were positive and proactive. We know that the ability to effectively solve problems is essential for helping students make the right decisions when confronted with violence or drugs. Smoother Sailing gets high marks in surveys of administrators, teachers and parents. They report a high degree of satisfaction with the program. Ninety-five percent of parents surveyed said the counselor is a valuable part of my child's educational development. Ninety-three percent said they would seek assistance from the counselor if the child was experiencing difficulties at school. Administrators credit Smoother Sailing with decreasing the number of student suspensions and referrals to the office for disciplinary action. In addition, principals report that the program is responsible for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Experts tell us that to be effective, there should be at least one counselor for every 250 students. Unfortunately, the current student:counselor ratio is more than double the recommended level--it is 531:1. That means counselors are stretched to the limit and cannot devote the kind of attention to children that is needed. In most schools, the majority of counselors are employed at the middle and secondary levels. Therefore, the situation is more acute in elementary schools where the student to counselor ratio is greater than 1000:1. Mr. President, Smoother Sailing was the model for the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act, a section of the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Today, along with Senators Lincoln and Wellstone, I am introducing the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation does three things. First, it reauthorizes the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act and expands services to secondary schools. Second, it authorizes $100 million in funding to hire school counselors, school psychologists and school social workers. Finally, since the counselor shortage is particularly acute in elementary schools, the amendment requires that the first $60 million appropriated would go to provide grants for elementary schools. Mr. President, CNN and USA Today recently conducted a public opinion poll of Americans. They asked what would make a difference in preventing a future outbreak of violence in our nation's schools. The leading response was to restrict access to firearms. The second most popular response--a response selected by 60% of those polled--was to increase the number of counselors in our nation's schools. We should heed the advice of the American people. We have a desperate need to improve counseling services in our nation's schools and this legislation will be an important step in addressing this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This legislation is supported by several organizations--the American Counseling Association, the American School Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the School of Social Work Association of America and the National Association of Social Workers. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I do remember that, I tell the Senator. I remember it very well, as a matter of fact.

Mr. HARKIN. That is what I do not understand. The Senator makes my point. The majority leader is trying to run the Senate like the Rules Committee, saying: We are bringing it up, but we don't want your amendments, we don't want you to discuss this. The Senate must be an open body. Placing authorizing measures on appropriations bills is an imperfect but, under the way the Senate is running now, a necessary method of bringing matters to the consideration of the Senate. In light of the actions by the Republican leader to cut off our debate and our ability to have open deliberation, we have been forced to use the appropriations bills as a method of doing that. These issues should be discussed seriously. I do not know that we need to change our rules so much around here as we need to show a greater willingness to be open, to allow for the smooth flow of ideas and amendments on the floor, rather than gagging Senators, preventing them from offering timely amendments. I must say, if we do not move toward some accommodation on this, parliamentary procedures will be used to deteriorate the ability of the Senate to function. The restoration of rule XVI will restrict our options on the minority side. But I cannot believe--and I say this to my friend from Nevada; I say this to the occupant of the Chair--I cannot believe that any serious student of parliamentary procedure believes that rule XVI will effectively block Senators from eventually getting votes on desired matters. It will happen, but it is going to take a terrible toll on this place. We should be debating issues such as the minimum wage and fair pay. The other day I saw a figure that said, if you took the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, the CEO pay in 1960 and the minimum wage in 1960, and you brought them forward to 1999, if the minimum wage had gone up at the same rate as CEO pay, the minimum wage today would be $40 an hour. I would like to debate that on the floor. I would like to debate the necessity and the need to raise the minimum wage. Mr. President, $10,700 a year, that is what it is right now for people trying to raise their families. We need a full deliberation on this. It is an important issue. Yet we are choked off and gagged from even doing so. I can assure the majority that this can only escalate. The reimposition of rule XVI will invite the use of alternative, more disruptive parliamentary methods in order for the minority to raise these important issues for the benefit of the American people. Furthermore, I believe that this, then, will cause further erosion of the good will of this body in the smooth consideration of legislation. We had 48 cloture votes in the last Congress. We have already had 17 this session. As the Senator from Nevada said, it is laid down immediately, not after we have debated it for some time; and the majority, exercising its right to bring debate to a close, files cloture. No. It is done right in the beginning before one amendment is offered, before one word is even uttered on the issue before us. So I say to the majority, do not escalate, because one escalation leads to another. The reimposition of rule XVI will lead to some other action taken on this side for the minority to exercise its rights. Then there will be another escalation on the other side, and then in the end the Senate will be the loser, our Government will be the loser, and the American people will lose. Let us not overturn the 1995 precedent on rule XVI. Let us, instead, have a substantive series of discussions to work out the necessary adjustments to the way we operate so that we can, once again, as we had until recent times, have open and fair deliberation of the major issues before this body. I thank the Senator for yielding me time.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator, he is absolutely right. I remember that time. I remember some of the great debates we had. I say to my friend from Nevada, when I came to the Senate, the Republicans were in charge, and then the Democrats were in charge, and then it went back to the Republicans again. In all those years--first it was under Senator Dole, then Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, Senator Dole again--in all that time, we had free and open debate in the Senate. Once in a while, the majority would try to skirt it a little bit, but that was used very rarely. The general rule in the Senate was that we had authorizing bills, we offered our amendments, and we debated them fully. Sometimes they lasted until 2:30 or 3 in the morning--not often, but once in a while when it was an important issue of the day, when those who felt strongly about those issues thought it needed a full airing. I do not remember at any time during that period that anything got held up, that this body came to a screeching, grinding halt. We had our say. We had good deliberations. That is gone now. We do not have that any longer. We do not have a free-flowing debate in the Senate any longer. A person gets up, gives a speech, and leaves the floor. Why? Because the way things are being structured now does not really allow for the free-flowing, deliberative debate we have had in the past. When we changed rule XVI in 1995, when the then-new Republican majority voted to change rule XVI, I was opposed to that. I thought we should continue to operate as we had been operating. But since 1995, what has happened is, under the new leadership in the Senate, we have a structure that does not allow for that kind of debate and deliberation on authorizing bills. It has been common now for the majority to take the position that we do not have any regular debate on controversial subjects. We are not allowed the orderly amendment process to be considered in the Senate. We are all products of our backgrounds, our upbringing, what we learned earlier in life. I know the distinguished majority leader--who is a fine man, and I have the greatest amount of respect for him--in his tenure in the House served on the Rules Committee. I am openly wondering whether or not the Senate majority leader's tenure on the House Rules Committee is somehow affecting his leadership in the Senate. Is the Senate majority leader trying to run the Senate the way the House Rules Committee runs the House? It seems to me that is what is happening, moving the Senate toward House procedures. The pattern has become clear. The Republican leader decides on a particular measure; they move to consider it in a process where no amendments can be offered or only a limited number of predetermined amendments may be offered. Again, the argument of limited time is often suggested as a reason-- we do not have all this time--but that is clearly a veil that hides nothing. Several days are spent working out the details of what may be allowed instead of proceeding to the bill and allowing us to debate. How many days, I ask my friend from Nevada, have we spent on the floor with nobody here, quorum call after quorum call, simply because the majority leader does not want to have a measure on the floor to which we can add our amendments and openly debate them? The reason given is that, well, it will take too much time if Senator Harkin or Senator Reid or Senator Johnson or Senator Dorgan get up and start offering their amendments and debate them. Yet we spend the entire week in quorum calls while they try to work out the details of some agreement on how to proceed. The Patients' Bill of Rights is a great example. We passed that in our committee, the committee on which I serve, last spring. We wanted to bring it out on the floor for debate. The majority leader would not allow it: Oh, it would take too much time, don't you see. What were we forced to do? We were forced to offer it on the agriculture appropriations bill. It should not have been there. We should have had open and free debate. That brought the ag appropriations bill to a standstill. Then they tried to work out how we were going to do this. Finally, there was a unanimous consent agreement that established a very tight rule, similar to the House Rules Committee, in order for us to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. Why didn't we bring it up in the first place a month or two ago and debate it in the orderly process and be done with it? Another example is the proposed lockbox, a procedure under which surpluses could be blocked from being spent year to year. There are a variety of ways this could have been accomplished. There are a lot of different views on this lockbox and how we are going to proceed on it. But look what has happened. Not once, not twice, but three times the majority leader moved to invoke cloture to block any amendments from being offered to lockbox--three times to shut off any amendments. So we still do not have the measure before us. Yet time is consumed, time is wasted around here. More time is wasted in the Senate than any place I have ever seen. We still have not brought up the lockbox. We could have brought it up a month ago and debated it.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Not one word of debate.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I say to the Senator, it was to stop endless debate.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for giving me this time. I listened with great interest and confusion--I guess a little bit-- to what the Senator from North Dakota was saying. He is right on target. I served 10 years in the House of Representatives before I came to the Senate. We were always a little frustrated at that time, I remember, by the Rules Committee because they would set up the rules by which we could debate. We only had 5 minutes in the House. You could speak 5 minutes, and that was it. Once in a while, you were lucky to get consent to speak for 7 or 8 minutes. We always knew that if the majority party or minority party or interested people could not get an amendment up because of the Rules Committee, it could always be done in the Senate. I cannot think of any time since I came to the Senate in 1975 when an issue we wanted to debate in the House but were prevented from doing so by the action of the Rules Committee was not then later followed up with full debate on the Senate floor. That is as the framers of our Constitution envisioned. The Senator from North Dakota is right, and the Senator from Nevada is right. With 435 Members in the House, there is no way it could function if it functioned under the same rules as the Senate, so they have to have a Rules Committee. I understand that. In the Senate, as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, we are to have open and deliberative debate about the great issues of the day, and it is to be just that, deliberative.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what happens, I ask the chairman, after that?

Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Brownback, Senator Bingaman, Senator Biden, Senator Johnson, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Murray, Senator Akaka, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Bryan. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment that is on the list. If I may, I would like to get a time line on that.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 7 minutes.

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

Mr. HARKIN. First of all, I take this time because I want to talk a little bit about the plight of American agriculture and our Nation's farmers and to talk about a bill that I will be introducing shortly.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware, for yielding me this time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important amendment to restore funding for the successful COPS Program. We know it works and it should be continued. Later on, I will also be offering an amendment to restore funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program--another vital resource for local law enforcement. I voted against this bill in committee for one main reason: it drains the critical funding needed by our local and state law enforcement to help them do their jobs--to fight the drug problems in our communities and to keep our streets safe. The bill before us cuts the Byrne grants by more than 18 percent. The local law enforcement block grant is cut by 24 percent. Neither of these cuts makes sense. Our communities need them to beef up their drug and violent crime task forces. These grants go straight to the state and local agencies. Why would they be cut? Violent crime has gone down, but does that mean we should give up the fight? Drugs and crime are a continuous battle and now is not the time to let up. I've received dozens of letters from Iowa police chiefs and sheriffs describing the kind of setbacks that they would suffer if these cuts go through. This amendment which restores just about a third of the fiscal year 1999 level funding for Community Oriented Policing Services Program, would be a good first step to giving our local communities the support they need to do their jobs. Police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country have told us loud and clear--the COPS Program is one of the 1994 Crime Act's most effective programs. Consider this: Serious crime is retreating all across the United States. Since the COPS Program began, violent crime across the nation has dropped 21 percent--in part because local law enforcement used these federal grants to hire more officers to keep our streets safe, and to upgrade their operations with new technology. In Iowa, the murder rate has plummeted 34 percent from last year. Now is not the time to cut back on our efforts to fight illegal drugs and violent crime. Rural America will pay the heaviest price if this amendment is not adopted. The COPS Program made a special commitment to include small towns and rural areas. Half of all COPS funding goes to agencies serving jurisdictions of under 150,000 in population. And its making a difference. I hear it all the time from sheriffs and police chiefs throughout Iowa. I got a letter just the other day from Police Chief Douglas Book of Forest City, Iowa--a town of 4,500 people. He said zero-funding COPS would be detrimental to his operation. He wrote: * * * COPS, by the addition of one officer, has allowed us to provide a school resource officer for 20 hours per week. Something that was non-existent before COPS. Through the addition of the COPS funded officer we were able to be proactive in various areas of our community. One very successful operation resulted in a 75 percent drop in juvenile assaults * * * This funding literally deals with the quality of life in America. Results, not politics, must be the guiding factor * * * COPS works. Fund it. [Douglas Book, Forest Hill Police Chief, 6/23/99] Here's another letter I received from Coralville, Iowa Police Chief Barry Bedford: Without the COPS Program, we would not have been able to keep up with the tremendous increase in the calls for service and crime-related activities, nor would we be able to obtain the vitally needed mobile data computers. This is a program that needs to continue if we are going to keep our communities safe. The chiefs are right. Community policing works. It's a flexible program that is responsive to law enforcement needs. More cops on the beat have an undeniable effect on crime and a community's sense of security. Funds to hire more than 100,000 officers have been awarded since 1994 by the COPS to more than 11,300 state and local law enforcement agencies across the nation. That's more than half the policing agencies in the country. As a result, these officers are joining agencies that serve more than 87 percent of the American public. Iowa alone has received over $37 million to hire 544 officers. COPS funds have also been used to put computers in police cars in Dubuque, help officers in Grundy Center deal with vandalism and help Waterloo police fight drugs. COPS grants have helped community and county police departments hire civilians to do paperwork so more officers can be out on the streets. In short, COPS has made our streets and communities safer. It makes no sense to block such a successful program that directly benefits our communities and makes them safer for our families. While crime is down--this is not the time to claim victory and retreat. So I urge my colleagues to support our amendment that restores this crucial law enforcement funding and I also urge that any language in this bill that mentions closing down the COPS office this year be deleted. I compliment my colleague from Delaware for being a great leader on this program. This amendment should be supported and adopted if we truly want to support our police officers and our sheriffs' departments throughout this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to address a question to the chairman of the Subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire, regarding funding for the Civil Division of the Justice Department. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced that the Federal Government intended to sue the nation's tobacco companies to recover billions of dollars in smoking-related health care costs reimbursed by federal health care programs. The administration's FY 2000 budget requested $15 million in new resources for the Civil Division of the Justice Department and $5 million for the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account support this litigation effort. Unfortunately, we were unable to provide the additional resources requested by the administration for the Civil Division to carry out this task. While I regret that the committee was unable to provide the new funds, it is my understanding that if the Justice Department deems this activity to be a high priority, base funding, including funds from the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account, can be used for this purpose. I ask the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee if my understanding of the bill and the report language is correct?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to address a question to the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire, regarding funding for the Civil Division of the Justice Department. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced that the Federal Government intended to sue the Nation's tobacco companies to recover billions of dollars in smoking-related health care costs reimbursed by federal heatlh care programs. The Administration's FY 2000 budget requested $15 million in new resources for the Civil Division of the Justice Department and $5 million for the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account to support this litigation effort. Unfortunately, we were unable to provide the additional resources requested by the Administration for the Civil Division to carry out this task. While I regret that the Committee was unable to provide the new funds, it is my understanding that if the Justice Department deems this activity to be a high priority, base funding, including funds from the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account, can be used for this purpose. I ask the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee if my understanding of the bill and the report language is correct?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, like so many of my fellow Senators, I just came from the memorial service that took place in Statuary Hall for the two police officers, Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut, who gave their lives 1 year ago defending the Capitol and those of us who work in these hallowed Halls. I just got to thinking, when I was there watching all of the uniformed police officers standing so gallantly up on the platform, what a tough job these policemen have, what a terribly tough job they have. On the one hand, because of the very nature of our jobs, we have to be accessible; we have to expose ourselves to the public on a daily basis, whether it is out in the front of the Capitol or over in the grass or walking between offices. We have to be available and accessible to the public. The police officers have to let us be accessible. We cannot put a shield around us. On the other hand, it is the police officers' sworn duty to protect us and to keep us safe from harm. All police officers have a tough job in this country. I think, above all, the police officers who work in and around the Capitol have the toughest job of all because they have these two conflicting responsibilities--to make us accessible, to not put shields around us, to keep this an open, public place, to be the shrine of freedom, and, on the other hand, to protect us and defend us from harm. I just must say, I am as guilty as anyone; I never take the time to thank the police officers who protect us. We pass by them every day. We go in and out of the doors. We see them on the subway. We exchange pleasantries. I am going to make an extra special effort from now on just to say thank you to these police officers, the men and women who protect us daily in the Capitol and who, as Officers Chestnut and Gibson showed a year ago, are willing to lay down their lives for us. We should thank them every day. I do so now and will make a special effort to do so in the future. (The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the introduction of legislation is located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')