Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, my chairman, Senator Specter, in commending, first of all, the staff for all the wonderful work they did in pulling this bill together. I especially want to thank Craig Higgins, Bettilou Taylor, Jack Chow, Jim Sourwine of Senator Specter's staff. And our staff on our side: Ellen Murray and Marsha Simon. This is a very complex, very big bill. It took us a long time to get it through. The Senate worked its will, and we did finish action on the bill. For the most part, I think it is a good bill, and I think it does move us in the right direction. There is a lot of good stuff in there for children's health, preventive health care measures. There are good provisions in there dealing with human services. For the most part, there are a lot of good items in there that will advance the cause of education in this country. However, I must once again, Mr. President, for the record state that the adoption of the Gorton amendment basically does away with all the targeted programs that this Congress has supported on a bipartisan basis for so long; things like vocational education, bilingual education, education technology, and some of the newer ones, like Goals 2000. These are all done away with by the Gorton amendment. What it says is we are going to take all this money and it goes to the local education agencies without any restrictions whatsoever. I am concerned that this was not widely known by a number of Senators when the vote was taken, and what also was not widely known, I don't believe, is that we have always had a cap, a limitation on how much money could be spent for administration. That has been even more heavily supported on the Republican side than the Democratic side, and yet that is removed. So the money that we have said should go out to States for vocational education will now go to a local education agency, and they can do whatever they want with it. They can build a swimming pool. They can pay their superintendents whatever they want. They can take, not the 5-percent cap we have on administration, they can say we want to use 20 percent for administration. Also, we have said in the past that these moneys should be used to supplement, not supplant, State efforts. That is taken away. So what can happen is all the money we put out to an area now that normally would go for vocational education or education technology or safe and drug-free schools, all of that money now doesn't have to be used for that, and the State can say, ``OK, we're not going to put the money in, we'll just use the Federal dollars and we'll take our money for roads, bridges'' and whatever else the State wants to do with their money, thus downgrading the amount of funds that actually go into education. I know it was said by the Senator from Washington, ``Well, not all knowledge resides in Washington; do we know what to do best in local school districts? The answer to that, obviously, is no. Keep in mind this money is not forced on the States. We are just saying this is Federal tax money that we vote to collect. And, yes, we do have a right and an obligation under the Constitution of the United States to decide how that money is to be spent. We don't have the obligation or the right to decide how States spend their own State tax dollars, but we certainly do have the right and the constitutional obligation to decide how we spend Federal tax dollars. And that's what we said. We want it spent on vocational education. We want it spent on safe and drug-free schools. Those programs have been supported widely on both sides of the aisle. We have also said we don't want more than 5 percent of that money to go to administrative costs, which has been widely supported on both sides of the aisle. That is all taken away by the Gorton amendment. Mr. President, I talked with a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--certainly not all of them--but a great number of them prior to the vote on final passage. While I voted for final passage of the bill, because there is a lot more good than bad in it, I must state for the record that if, in fact, this provision is not dropped in conference, if we don't have the votes to drop it in conference, if it comes back from conference, as the minority manager on this bill, I am going to vote against it. I hope that the President will send strong signals that he will veto this bill if this provision remains in the bill because it would do away with years and years of what we have done to focus attention on areas of education, like vocational education, safe and drug-free schools, education technology and others, that we thought were so necessary in order to move this country forward. I just hope this provision will be dropped in conference and that we can come back and support the bill out of conference with the same strong vote that we had here. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take just a minute before the final passage of this bill to comment upon an amendment that was just adopted here, the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington State. I am concerned about the impact of that amendment and what it is going to do to education. I do not know how many people understand what we have just done here. What we have just said in adopting this amendment on such a narrow vote is that many education programs including vocational education, bilingual education, education technology, immigrant education, safe and drug-free schools, and Goals 2000--some you may like, some you may not like, but all of these programs are now part of a block grant. This money now goes to local education agencies in the form of a block grant. All of the things that we have worked so hard on, on a bipartisan basis, in terms of technology, safe and drug-free schools, vocational education, all of these are gone under this amendment. Mr. President, $4 billion of that money now goes out to local education agencies in the form of a block grant. There will be no requirements on how this money is to be spent--none whatsoever. In other words, they can take the money and build a swimming pool and say the heck with education technology or safe and drug-free schools or vocational education. There is no limitation. We have had in the past limitations on how much of this money could be used for administrative costs, to pay for superintendents and all the administrative people who make up our schools.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota. The Senator's amendment is simple. It would shift $525 from the Pentagon budget to Head Start, a very worthy program under the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. The amendment does not specify where in the Pentagon budget the funds would come from, we leave that for a later time and for input from our military leaders. The first National Education Goal states that by the year 2000, all children will start school ready to learn. Earlier this year, scientific research provided irrefutable evidence that the best way to achieve this goal was in a child's first three years of life. The release of this research was followed by a White House conference, television specials, magazine articles and a lot of talk about the need to improve activities to promote the development and education of young children. The pending legislation made some very modest efforts to seize the momentum created by these activities, but were limited by the constraints of the budget agreement. The bill does make some improvements, such as: Head Start is increased by $324 million with 10 percent dedicated to the Early Head Start program. This action doubles the set-aside for the programs which serve children up to the age of three. The early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities is increased by 11 percent to $351 million. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is directed to examine the quality of child care funded by federal resources to determine to what extent recent research on the brain development of young children is being applied by recipients. In addition, the bill provides more resources for other programs to enhance the education and development of young children such as the Parents as Teachers Program, child care block grant and the Healthy Start Program. While I am pleased with these investments in the education of young children and appreciate Senator Specter's support, however, we need to do more--much more. That's why I am pleased to support Senator Wellstone's amendment to provide additional funding for Head Start. At the present time, Head Start is serving only a fraction of the number of children eligible for these services. The additional funding would expand the number of children receiving the education and health services that will enable them to start school ready to learn. The key to our economic security requires a well-educated, highly skilled and healthy work force and the strong foundation for this skilled work force is formed during the first years of a child's life. To achieve this goal however, it is critical that children start school ready to learn so that they will leave school able to earn. The amendment would reduce funds for the Department of Defense so I would like to take a few moments talking about the Pentagon spending. A perfect example of unnecessary spending is the plan by the other body to spend $331 million for additional B-2 bombers. The Department of Defense has spent $44.4 billion to develop and purchase 21 planes. Now B-2 bomber advocates want to purchase an additional 20 planes at a cost of $35.9 billion for procurement and operations. This works out to more than $1.7 billion per plane. In fact, this means that the B-2 bomber costs more than three times its weight in gold. Both the House Defense authorization and Defense appropriations bills include $331 million as a down payment for an additional nine planes, with the hopes of building even more later on. The list of folks who oppose additional B-2 bombers has become noteworthy. The Air Force doesn't want more B-2 bombers. This has been well know for quite some time. Now, other parts of the defense establishment oppose additional planes. In August, Defense News--hardly a bastion of the liberal press--published an editorial entitled, ``Time to Pause on B-2.'' To quote the editorial, ``the U.S. House of Representatives should pause for reflection before it takes one more step to resuscitate the B-2 bomber program and buy nine more planes.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Defense News editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the latest bad news for the B-2 bomber program is a GAO report that describes some serious shortfalls with the planes stealth features. Specifically, the aircraft is more sensitive to climate and exposure than expected. The B-2 requires special shelters to maintain its stealthiness or prolonged exposure to the rain and other common weather problems can negate the planes' ability to avoid radar. This is not the first time that the B-2 bomber has faced problems with rain. Two years ago, we heard how the bomber's radar had trouble telling the difference between a rain cloud and a mountain. In fact, the Air Force hinted at the stealth problems back in 1990, when they sought approval for a series of special hangars for the B-2 bomber at a cost of $4.7 million each. I am sure the cost has gone up in the past 7 years, but even then, the problem of maintaining the sensitive stealth skin of the B-2 bomber was talked about. And now the GAO has shed more light on the B-2 bomber stealth problems. According to the GAO, the B-2 bomber must be kept in shelters because of their sensitivity to moisture, water or other severe climatic conditions. Unless flown in only the most benign environments--low humidity, no precipitation, moderate temperature--the plane requires extensive maintenance or it will not be ready for use. I think modern warfare will included conditions that aren't exactly the most benign environment. Here is how some newspapers are now describing the bomber. The New York Times has said: ``The $2 billion Stealth Bomber Can't Go out in the Rain.'' The St. Peterburg Times used the headline: ``Not so stealthy when wet.'' And Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times said ``Let's hope it rains on the B-2's parade.'' No one disputes that the Cold War is now over, but some in this body would like to continue funding the Department of Defense as if it had never ended. The B-2 bomber is the perfect example of that view. The world today is not the world of 1985. True, there are dangers to the United States, but they are not the kind of dangers which justify a military budget that swallows discretionary spending and harms the very citizens it seeks to protect. They are not the kind of dangers that require more B-2 bombers at a price we cannot afford. Even with the elimination of the Soviet Union, our defense spending is still over 80 percent of United States cold war spending levels. The United States will spend nearly three times what any other country on the face of the Earth will spend on defense. In fact, if you added up the military expenses of all of Europe and South America combined, that is to say every country in Europe and South America together, you would find that the United States still out spends them on defense. I ask you Madam President, what is all of this money for? What enemy are we going to fight? Cuba, who spends less then 1 percent of our military budget? Or Lybia or Iraq or Iran or North Korea or Syria? Or are we spending $266 billion a year simply to have a large military. Let's look at some more figures. United States military spending is three times more than China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Vietnam combined. It is more than double all of our NATO allies combined and it is larger than the next eight largest military budgets combined. As it stands now, such a large portion of our discretionary budget goes toward defense spending, that the security of our citizens is threatened. Yes, Madam President, you heard me correctly, they are threatened by increased defense spending. Why? Because every extra dollar we spend on defense is a dollar less for education, for putting police on the streets, for stopping the drug epidemic and feeding our children. The amount of discretionary funding spent on defense totals over 50 percent of the discretionary budget. That means that the portion of the total budget that Congress actually decides where it will get spent, or the discretionary budget, goes overwhelmingly toward defense. For every discretionary dollar, 50 cents goes to defense. Not education, not health care for children, but defense. Every dollar we spend on defense has to come from somewhere. My question is, Where does the funds for defense come from? Does it mean one less school gets connected to the Internet? One more child can't read, or one more child goes hungry?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Coverdell's amendment. Americans need to have the cleanest and safest meat and other foods. The emergency of E. coli:0157H7 is a real threat which we must quickly respond to. The Coverdell amendment provides funding to address this important issue. There are several ways to reduce E. coli and other microbial contamination and we need to take a multifaceted approach. More research is one of those. The new hazard analysis and critical control point inspection system will start to be implemented on January 1, 1998. That will be a considerable benefit. I believe that an additional improvement that can be made is the use of electronic pasteurization. Through that means, we can kill a wide variety of pathogens that may come into accidental contact with foods with no downside to the consumer other than a very small cost. I would expect that the Department should coordinate its research efforts with USDA in those areas where the Department of Agriculture has expertise. I am hopeful that we will move along all of these paths in order to provide the safest and most reliable possible food supply.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment fundamentally alters the distribution of Federal education funds by converting a poverty based formula to a general aid formula. This is major change in Federal education policy and there has not been a single hearing on the impact or advisability of such a change. The Senator from Washington said it is his goal to get more money into the classroom. However, I wonder how there can be any such assurance since his amendment eliminates the requirement that Federal funds must supplement and not supplant existing education funds. We all know that dollars are fungible and there is nothing to prevent a state from merely reducing State Support for education and spending more money for other worthy things like roads and bridges. The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided schools with greater flexibility, especially with respect to title I. These changes are working. As Federal lawmakers, we have a responsibility to make sure the Federal dollar is well spent. This amendment undermines the provisions of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to improve accountability of Federal education programs.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1097, as amended

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I understand that, but it is a maximum of $5 million in any regard. Now, this has to do with attorney's fees paid in connection with a State recovering money. This does not have to do with the so-called proposed big settlement that is going to come to us in the future. This applies to States. I wonder how we, here, can limit attorney's fees in a State action?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I hope that we can reach an agreement on this amendment in the second degree on a time limit, and if we can reach an agreement on a couple of more that we have, then I hope the majority and minority leaders would agree that we could roll those over and vote tomorrow, and not have any more votes tonight.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Who has the floor?

Mr. HARKIN. I wonder if I might inquire of the author of the amendment, the Senator from Alabama, a question. I was reading it over, and as I read the amendment, under the first section, paragraph A of your amendment, you put a limitation on the per-hour rate of attorneys, and then there is a cap total of $5 million that applies per State?

Mr. HARKIN. The $5 million applies to per-State maximum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Janet Goldberg, a detailee in my office, be permitted privileges of the floor on the debate of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will withhold, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1101.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Record be corrected to reflect that amendment No. 1115 is a Harkin amendment, cosponsored by Senators Bingaman and Kennedy.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $900,000 for the first year costs for the bipartisan Commission on Medicare authorized in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The additional funds are fully offset.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield. For the benefit of Senators, what we are looking at right now is probably two votes that will take place at about 4:45 or 5 o'clock.