Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I haven't had the opportunity in the last couple of days to have my say on Mr. Estrada. I thought I would take the time now to talk a little bit about the nomination of Miguel Estrada for the D.C. circuit court. I have to say that there has been a lot of nonsense bandied about in the Chamber on the nomination and the idea of whether we are holding something up. Facts are bothersome things, as they say. What some people say in the past may come back to haunt them in the future. It was Mo Udall, former Congressman, who coined the wonderful phrase. He always said: O Lord, let me always utter kind and humble words for tomorrow morning I may have to eat them. I was looking back through the record. The current chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1997 addressed the Utah chapter of the Federalist Society. This is what the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee said: The Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining who will become activist is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails. Determining which of President Clinton's nominees would become activist is complicated and would require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views. That is interesting because when Mr. Estrada refused to answer even the most simple, straightforward questions, that sure doesn't help us in questioning his jurisprudential views. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Mr. Estrada is a movement person. He will be a movement judge, one who will try to move the court in a certain ideological direction. What also concerned me was something my colleague Senator Hatch from Utah said the other day. He said: An up or down vote, that is all we ask. If the Democrats have enough votes to defeat Miguel Estrada, I will not complain about it. I might feel badly about it and I might say it was the wrong thing to do, but they have a right to do it. If my colleagues who disagree do not like this, they can speak out. They can give their reason. They can vote no. Politics ought to be left out of it. That is what the Senator from Utah said last night. Unfortunately, I am sorry that his sentiments didn't exist when President Clinton's nominees came up for confirmation. I recall saying just about the same thing over and over again on the nomination of Bonnie Campbell to serve on the Eighth Circuit. She received her hearing in May of 2000 and then her nomination was stopped cold. Despite the fact she had the ABA stamp of approval, a long and distinguished history in the field of law, including her work as Iowa's attorney general. Members on both sides of the aisle supported her nomination. On September 21 and October 3, I tried to bring it up. Then during the month of October I brought up Bonnie Campbell's nomination seven times and seven times the Republican majority objected. The Senator from Utah kept talking last night about the Democrats' double standard. My first instinct is to call that claim laughable. But in reality, it is outrageous and duplicitous to us because so many extremely well-qualified nominees never got an up-or-down vote on the floor, never got a vote in committee, and many never even got a hearing. Bonnie Campbell had a hearing, but then they stopped her cold. Senator Hatch suggested Bonnie Campbell's nomination came too late in the last year of the last administration. I know for a fact that two of Senator Kyl's district court judges were nominated after Bonnie Campbell was, and they were confirmed on October 3, 2000. And now back to Mr. Estrada. We're not holding Mr. Estrada up because we feel like spending all of our time through the wee hours of the night talking about him. We're holding up because he hasn't told us anything. He hasn't answered the soft ball questions that nearly all judicial nominees have more than willingly answered. What's he got to hide? I don't know Mr. Estrada. To the best of my knowledge, I never met him. But I do know we have heard from people who do know him, who have associated with him, some of whom have termed him ``scary'' in his outlook, scary in what he might do as a judge. I don't know if he is or not, but I know the people who have associated with him have called him that. They think he is some kind of a rightwing kook. I don't know if he is or not. How do we know? Well, the stealth candidate hasn't helped when he won't even answer the most simple, straightforward questions. So we have no way of knowing one way or the other. It is our job as Senators to examine nominees, their background, their way of thinking to determine what kind of judges they would be and whether or not they can fairly and impartially administer the law. And as far as this Senator is concerned, I keep coming back to the same conclusion: we don't know enough about him to make an informed decision on his nomination to a lifelong appointment to the second most important and influential court of the land. Even after I find out more about him, I may vote against him, but I don't think we even have to bring him up for a vote until we know more about Mr. Estrada. Is he a rightwing kook? I don't know. Some people say he is. Some people say he is scary. We have no way of knowing at this point in time. That is why we should not bring his name up. We should not move forward on this until we find out more--unlike Bonnie Campbell, who answered all the questions and gave all the documents they ever asked of her. Yet, they would not even bring her name to the floor. So to my friend from Utah who says there is a double standard, I say look in the mirror. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. One of the key provisions of the bipartisan Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 signed into law by President Bush last year was a significant new conservation initiative called the Conservation Security Program (CSP) which will, if properly implemented, significantly improve conservation practices and result in cleaner air and water. I want to clarify the intent of provisions related to this program included in this conference report and actions that will be taken to preserve current law provisions. First, it is my understanding that it was the intention of the conferees that the CSP be implemented and operated according to the terms of the 2002 farm bill. Second, it is my understanding that the provisions in this conference report were only intended to apply to years following expiration of this measure and were not intended in any way to modify operation of the program prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Third, it is my understanding that as soon as possible this year a conference report that is expected to become law will be brought before the Senate that contains provisions that assure that the CSP will operate as established and intended in the 2002 farm bill for the duration of that bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this month, Iowa Wesleyan College is marking an important milestone--1 million hours of service by their students to the community. As we celebrate National Volunteer Month, I would like to take a few moments to recognize this extraordinary achievement. Iowa Wesleyan is a 161 year old liberal arts college located in Mount Pleasant, IA. The college is affiliated with the Methodist Church and ``Learning in Community'' has been the central mission since its inception in 1842. This mission was formally integrated in 1968 with the establishment of the Responsible Social Involvement, RSI, program. Initially begun as a way to channel the strong desire of students to become socially active, RSI was adopted as a requirement for graduation in 1971. Students must contribute a minimum of 160 hours of service to a non- profit organization. They record their experiences in a journal, write a paper reflecting on the experience and make an oral presentation to a faculty committee. Students receive 6 hours of college credit for their service. For 35 years, Iowa Wesleyan students have served in all types of jobs and all kinds of communities. Students have served as mentors with Big Brother/Big Sister and volunteered for organizations including the American Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity and Special Olympics. Students have served in schools, orphanages and hospitals around the world. They have contributed their time and talent in communities from Mount Pleasant, IA to Jakarta, Indonesia. Since 1968, Wesleyan students have provided companionship to nursing home residents, tutored children on Indian reservations, coached athletic teams and the list goes on. Over the years, 5000 Wesleyan students have logged 1 million hours of service--or more than 114 years of service. The RSI program has been a life changing experience for many and has prompted many alumni to continue their volunteer efforts after graduation. It is impossible to calculate the total impact of the program around the State, Nation and world. In the first of its kind survey of U.S. households, the National Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 59 million Americans over the age of 16 volunteered between September 2001 and September 2002. Although nearly 30 percent of our citizens are currently serving their communities, the need for more volunteers is vast and I encourage every person to get involved. Volunteer work is the most rewarding experience you will ever find. I am reminded of this fact every week as a volunteer for the Everybody Wins! Program where I spend the lunch hour reading with a student at Brent Elementary. This is one of the most enjoyable parts of my week and I wouldn't miss it for the world. Unfortunately, there are too many children and not enough volunteers, so please get involved. You can check your local newspaper, contact nonprofit organizations in your areas or log on to the Internet to find out about volunteer opportunities in your community. There are millions of volunteer jobs that need you. The best way to recognize this milestone of 1 million hours of service by the students of Iowa Wesleyan College is to join them. Congratulations to the students, alumni and staff of Iowa Wesleyan College for reaching this milestone. You have made a real difference to your communities bullet.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Utah, please explain why the difference in substance rather than form of what happened 2 years ago, now almost 2\1/2\ years ago, in the year 2000. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing in May 2000 on the nomination of one Bonnie Campbell, former attorney general of the State of Iowa to be a justice for the Eighth Circuit--and then, nothing. Then the Republican leadership would not bring her name on the floor for a vote. Seven times that fall I came to the floor, I say to the Senator, to ask that her name be brought up to vote, up or down or that at least she get a vote in committee. The Republican leadership would not bring her name up for a vote. I ask the Senator from Utah, other than form, what is the difference in substance between that and today?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. He loses the right to the floor on the motion.

Mr. HARKIN. He lost the right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from across the Mississippi River in Illinois, Senator Durbin, for the very kind and overly generous words. More than that, I thank him for his diligence and for his hard work on this issue which means so much to the average working person in America. I will just say at the outset that Senator Durbin has, I believe, correctly laid out the meeting we had with Mr. Snow earlier this evening, and has also correctly portrayed the assurances we got from Mr. Snow regarding this issue and how he would approach it as the new Secretary of the Treasury. Again, I want to make it clear that the actions of this Senator earlier today and yesterday in wanting to have a bit of time here to talk about this before we voted on this nomination had nothing to do with Mr. Snow. I said that earlier this evening. This is nothing personal at all. He has a very distinguished career in the business community. He was head of the CSX Railroad, I guess for well over 20- some years, if I am not mistaken, and has served well on boards of schools, universities, John Hopkins, and others. In other words, he has been both a business leader and a community leader. Again, I want to compliment him and commend him for his distinguished career and for his service both to his company and to our country. I congratulate Mr. Snow on his nomination for Secretary of the Treasury and will join with my colleagues in supporting that nomination. I feel, as Senator Durbin said, that he gave us assurances on this issue--and I will talk more about this issue in a minute--dealing with pensions and workers' rights; that he will assure the fairness and equity as the rule. In fact, I wrote down exactly what Mr. Snow said. He said: I believe we should protect the basic rights of workers. And, if a rule doesn't meet that test, it won't move forward. Fundamental fairness will be at the center of any policy. I compliment Mr. Snow for that. As Senator Durbin pointed out, as the CEO of the CSX Railroad, when they changed their plan over from a defined-benefit plan to a cash-balance plan, they left in place for older workers the defined-benefit plan. In other words, they could stay with that plan. Newer, younger workers could go with cash balance plans. To me, that really makes sense. That is really the way we ought to be going in this country when we talk about our pensions and protecting our pensions. So my actions here yesterday and today have not been about Mr. Snow. They have been about this issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness for people who work hard, play by the rules, and then find out--after working 20 or 30 years--that what they thought they were going to get has been taken away. So that is what this is about. Over the last several days, I have been reading a book that was given to me last year. I had not gotten to it. I have now been reading it. I am almost finished with it. I recommend it highly. It is a book by Kevin Phillips called ``Wealth and Democracy.'' I remember in one part of the book he pointed out that over the last 30 years--I think from 1970 to about the year 2000--the difference in the compensation for our CEOs and the people who work on the shop floor, so to speak, has been that in 1972, the average CEO salary was about 42 times that of the average worker in that corporation. That was 1970--42 times; by the year 2000, that gap had widened to 417 times. In other words, today, the average CEO is getting 417 times the compensation of the average worker in that corporation. So that gap has widened tremendously. Also what has happened is that we see, time and time and time again, that when CEOs of these large corporations hit a rough spot--the company maybe has a rough spot, the CEOs leave the corporation--they get wonderful golden parachutes. They get wonderful retirement programs. We have to have that same kind of fairness for the average workers. In 2001, we passed numerous pension provisions that had wide support. Many provisions favored those making more than $200,000 a year. I am not saying those provisions are bad, but we need some balance. In the early 1990s, U.S. companies began a process of switching from defined benefit pension plans to cash balance plans. I am not going to get into the esoteric descriptions of defined benefits plans and cash balance plans, but only to say that many workers who affected by these changes had no idea what was happening to their pensions. You might ask: Why has this all of a sudden come to the forefront in the year 2003? Well, it did not. I first drafted legislation in 1999, because by that time workers whose pensions had been changed in the early and mid-1990s, and who were now really facing retirement, all of a sudden woke up and found out that they did not have what they thought they would, and they had no recourse. So, in 1999, I introduced a bill to make it illegal for corporations wear away the benefits of older workers during cash balance conversions. We had a vote on that bill in the Senate. I offered it as an amendment to the reconciliation bill, and a point of order was raised, so we had to vote to waive the point of order. 48 Senators, including 3 Republicans, voted to waive the budget point of order so we could consider this amendment. Obviously, we did not have enough votes. After that, more and more stories came out about how many workers were losing their pensions. In April of 2000, I offered a sense-of-the- Senate resolution to stop this practice, and it passed the Senate unanimously. The Secretary of the Treasury put a moratorium on conversions from defined benefit plans to a cash balance plans. That moratorium has been in effect now for over three years. Last month, a rule was proposed by the Treasury Department--a rule that would turn the clock back, undo the moratorium, and allow companies to once again engage in the practice of switching from defined benefit plans to cash balance plans and wear away the benefits of older workers. So that is why I wanted to utilize this time and this nomination of Mr. Snow to be Secretary of the Treasury, to raise this issue once again and to talk with Mr. Snow about it as the incoming Secretary of the Treasury. We cannot permit this rule to just go forward. I think it was clear here in the Senate, in 2000, that we did not want that practice to continue. So I wanted to take this time to bring this issue to the forefront. What are we talking about when we talk about how much people are losing in this? This morning, we had a press conference. We had a man there by the name of Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands robbed of the full value of their earned pensions. He said that before AT&T converted his pension, it was valued at $350,000. After the conversion, in July 1997, the value dropped to $138,000. The calculation period for his pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no value to his retirement account was added for any years he worked after the conversion. So he said: In September 2001, I was ``downsized'' out of AT&T and decided to take my pension. I discovered that it translated into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303 income under the old plan. When these plans were changed over, workers were not informed that this could happen. They woke up one day and found out: they have less than 50 percent of what they thought they were going to get in their retirement. Is that fair? Is that equitable? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement of Larry Cutrone that he gave this morning be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. We have right now over 1,000 cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, over 1,000 cases regarding age discrimination. These are cases of people who have had their retirement pensions, what they were promised, reduced like Larry Cutrone; 1,000 cases filed under age discrimination. I believe these cases have merit. They are going to go forward. They are going to go into Federal courts. I want to make it very clear: I am not opposed to cash balance plans. Some cash balance plans can be very good. What I am opposed to is the unilateral decision of a company being able to change their plans and stop contributing to an employee's pension without their knowledge. That is what I am opposed to. That is what this issue is all about. It is fairness. It is equity. I know sometimes when you get into pension laws, things like that, it sounds very convoluted. In essence, what some of these companies have been doing to these workers is nothing less than sheer thievery. They are able to save millions, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, by converting these plans over, robbing--yes, I use the word ``robbing''--their workers who have been loyal and hard working, robbing them of their rightful claims on future benefits, taking that money and giving it in higher benefits to the CEOs and the corporate executives, golden parachutes. It is not right. It is not fair. There is one thing that has distinguished the American workplace from others around the world. We have valued loyalty. If you are hard working and loyal, companies value that. At least they used to. That is one of the reasons we had pension plans--the longer you worked there, the more benefit you had in your pension program. Obviously, the longer you work someplace, the better you do your job, the more you learn about it, the more productive you are. We valued that loyalty. If companies are able to just change these plans, what kind of a signal does that send to the workers? It sends this signal: Don't be loyal. You are a fool if you are loyal because if you work here for 20 or 25 years, we can just change the rules of the game, and break our promise. What it says to younger workers is: It would be crazy to work for this company for a long time. I will work here a couple years; I will move on. It destroys the kind of work ethic we have come to value and that we know built this country. I also thought we valued fairness when it comes to workers. A deal is a deal. Let's say I wanted to hire you. I said: I will hire you for 5 years, pay you $50,000 a year. But if you stay with me for 5 years, I will give you a $50,000 bonus. You say, OK, that is good. So now you work for me 3 years and you are thinking you have 2 more years to go and you will get that $50,000 bonus. But at the end of the third year I come to you and say: Do you remember the deal we made where I said if you work for me for 5 years you will get that $50,000 bonus? Well, the deal is off. Well, now you have 3 years invested there. If you had known that the deal was going to be off, maybe you would not have gone to work for me. Maybe you would have gone to work someplace else. Is that the way we want to treat workers in this country, where I have all the cards and you have none, and I can make whatever deal I want, but I can change the rules any time I want to and take away your pension? That is what this is about. Well, as Senator Durbin said, I thought we had a good meeting with Mr. Snow. I am encouraged by the fact that, as a CEO of his corporation, when they changed their plans over, they left a choice for workers. That is the right and honorable way to do things. I compliment Mr. Snow for having done that. I am also assured that the rules of the game won't be changed in the middle. In other words, there is a moratorium on right now, and I am assured that the moratorium will stay on at least until a final rule is promulgated. Mr. Snow has said he would agree to meet with people--employers, representatives of labor groups, representatives of elderly groups--to get their input on this approach and, hopefully, on perhaps having a new rule. I want to make it clear this Senator will continue to press for the Treasury Department--when Mr. Snow gets confirmed and sworn in--to withdraw that rule. He has the power to do it as Secretary of the Treasury--withdraw the proposed rule and come out with a new one that more closely reflects what he had done as a CEO of a corporation earlier on when they changed their plans over. That is the fair way to do it. This is an issue that is not going to go away. Again, I think more and more working Americans are beginning to find out their hard work and loyalty is being taken away and they have no voice. Well, that is what we are here for, to help protect these people, and to make sure their voice is heard and to make sure the pensions they have built up over a long period of time over their working years is not unilaterally taken away by the companies for whom they worked. Again, I have no intention of holding up Mr. Snow's nomination at all. As I said, my only intention in doing this was to raise this issue up, to make sure Mr. Snow understood the depth of our feelings about it, the history in the Senate that we had passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution unanimously in 2000, and that there are a lot of strong feelings nationally--just witness the 1,000 cases now pending before the EEOC, plus the fact that there are now about 300 filings right now before the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, by companies wanting to engage in this practice--change from defined benefit plans, to cash balance plans, without protecting the rights of the workers. I have estimated, roughly, that this represents several hundred thousand workers in this country who would be affected by this. We need to send a clear and strong signal that we are not going to allow this to happen. If companies want to change plans, fine; but give the workers the choice to stick with the plan they have had or to take the new one. That is all we are asking for. Mr. President, again, I congratulate Mr. Snow on his selection to be Secretary of the Treasury. I look forward to working with him. I thank him for his distinguished career, and I hope he is able to bring to the position that he will assume shortly the philosophy he had when he was the CEO of CSX Rail, and the kind of implementation of the change in their pension plans will be the kind of philosophy that we will have now at the Department of the Treasury. Every worker in this country ought to have the right to choose just like the workers at CSX had under Mr. Snow. Again, I look forward to working with Mr. Snow on this issue. I hope we can get a fair resolution of this in the days and weeks to come. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 189 Members of the House of Representatives and 25 Senators signed a letter that was sent today to President Bush, asking that we do not reopen the floodgates, that we withdraw this rule and promulgate a rule that is fair and equitable. As we said in our letter: We are writing to strongly urge you to withdraw proposed Treasury Department regulations regarding cash balance pension plans and to issue new regulations that will prohibit profitable companies from reducing the pension benefits of existing employees or retirees by converting to age- discriminatory cash balance plans. The recently proposed regulations would create an incentive for thousands of companies to convert to cash balance plans by providing legal protection against claims of age bias by older employees. Often when companies switch from defined benefit plans to cash balance plans, a worker can work for 20 or 25 years, but the employer may not pay anything into your pension plan for several years. But they will contribute to a younger worker who has only been there for 2 years. So let's understand this. You have two workers work for the same company, doing the same job. One gets extra wages in the form of a benefit of money put into a cash balance account. The other worker, who has been there 20 or 25 years, does not get it. That is age discrimination, pure and simple, in violation of Federal law. The only reason the one person is not getting it is because they have been there longer. The younger worker gets the money; the older worker does not. That is age discrimination, pure and simple. As we said in our letter: [The proposed] regulations [from Treasury] would result in millions of older employees losing a significant portion of the annual pension they had been promised by their employer and had come to rely upon as part of their retirement planning. That is what happened to Larry Cutrone. We write: We urge you to direct the Treasury Department to immediately withdraw these proposed regulations and instead issue regulations that provide for the protection of older employees pensions. At a time when millions of employees are still reeling from significant losses to their 401(k) retirement plans because of corporate scandals and the ongoing weakness in the stock market, we believe these regulations represent another serious blow to the retirement security of hard working Americans who have played by the rules in their companies only to see the rules of the game . . . change midway through their careers. I ask unanimous consent this letter, signed by 189 Members of the House and 25 Senators, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation similar to the measure we proposed in the last Congress to effectively prevent very rich individuals from reducing their taxes by renouncing the U.S. citizenship. It is a companion to a measure introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel in 2002. The Joint Tax Committee estimated that it will raise $656 million over 10 years from a very few people who I call Benedict Arnolds. These people turn their back on their country which provided so well for then, in order to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. Under current law, there are special rules that apply to these former citizens that appear to recover funds lost to the Treasury. However, they are full of holes. Under the current regime, for 10 years after a U.S. citizen renounces his or her citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. taxes, the person is taxed at the rates that would have applied had he or she remained a citizen. In reality, the tax is nominally on a broader base of income and on more types of transactions. In addition, if the expatriate dies within 10 years of the expatriation, more types of assets are included in his or her estate. Unfortunately, the reality is that taxes are very often not paid. The reality is that once a person has expatriated and removed U.S. assets from U.S. jurisdiction, it is extremely difficult to enforce the current rules, particularly for an entire decade after the citizenship is renounced. The measure I introduced simply provides that the very act of renouncing one's citizenship triggers the recognition of tax. So, rather than collecting tax every time an asset is sold over the next decade, my bill treats all of the assets of an expatriate as having been sold the day prior to when the person renounces their citizenship. The taxes are due up front rather than over time. In regard to estate taxes, rather than attempting to collect the tax from the estate of an expatriate not in the U.S. jurisdiction, my measure taxes the inheritance of an heir who remain in the United States in such a way as to remove any tax benefit from the renouncement of citizenship. $656 million in revenue from these very few former citizens is a lot of revenue that must be made up by loyal Americans in the form of higher debt or taxes that Americans will face. Last year, the Senate passed the measure as a part of the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act but, unfortunately, the House opposed this provision. I am hopeful that it can become law this year. People should not be able to reduce their taxes by renouncing their citizenship.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation similar to the measure we proposed in the last Congress to effectively prevent very rich individuals from reducing their taxes by renouncing the U.S. citizenship. It is a companion to a measure introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel in 2002. The Joint Tax Committee estimated that it will raise $656 million over 10 years from a very few people who I call Benedict Arnolds. These people turn their back on their country which provided so well for then, in order to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. Under current law, there are special rules that apply to these former citizens that appear to recover funds lost to the Treasury. However, they are full of holes. Under the current regime, for 10 years after a U.S. citizen renounces his or her citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. taxes, the person is taxed at the rates that would have applied had he or she remained a citizen. In reality, the tax is nominally on a broader base of income and on more types of transactions. In addition, if the expatriate dies within 10 years of the expatriation, more types of assets are included in his or her estate. Unfortunately, the reality is that taxes are very often not paid. The reality is that once a person has expatriated and removed U.S. assets from U.S. jurisdiction, it is extremely difficult to enforce the current rules, particularly for an entire decade after the citizenship is renounced. The measure I introduced simply provides that the very act of renouncing one's citizenship triggers the recognition of tax. So, rather than collecting tax every time an asset is sold over the next decade, my bill treats all of the assets of an expatriate as having been sold the day prior to when the person renounces their citizenship. The taxes are due up front rather than over time. In regard to estate taxes, rather than attempting to collect the tax from the estate of an expatriate not in the U.S. jurisdiction, my measure taxes the inheritance of an heir who remain in the United States in such a way as to remove any tax benefit from the renouncement of citizenship. $656 million in revenue from these very few former citizens is a lot of revenue that must be made up by loyal Americans in the form of higher debt or taxes that Americans will face. Last year, the Senate passed the measure as a part of the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act but, unfortunately, the House opposed this provision. I am hopeful that it can become law this year. People should not be able to reduce their taxes by renouncing their citizenship.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy regarding the restoration of Section 32 funds that were depleted to finance the Administration's ad-hoc program to provide emergency aid to livestock producers. On two separate occasions last year, the Senate passed provisions on strongly bipartisan votes to provide disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Rather than acknowledging the need for this emergency disaster assistance legislation, the Administration devised a program of limited help to livestock producers and thereby put in jeopardy Federal assistance for the school lunch and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs this fiscal year and possibly next. The Administration funded the Livestock Compensation Program through the use of Section 32 funds. Section 32 provides funds for school lunch and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs. Further, through Section 32 purchases of surplus commodities--such as fruits, vegetables and portk--USDA is able to support producers and provide food to child nutrition programs, soup kitchens and food banks, and Indian reservations. When the LCP was announced, the Administration estimated the program would use $752 million from Section 32. However, due to the ``open ended'' nature of the LCP and an under-estimate of its projected cost, as of December 3 the program had drained an additional $185 million-- for a total of $937 million--from Section 32. Even at the $752 million level, it was apparent that the Administration had over-committed the resources of the Section 32 account by several hundred million dollars. Use of such a large amount of Section 32 funds diverted resources away from other agricultural producers who benefit from use of Section 32 for the traditional purpose of removing surpluses from the market. The shortfall in Section 32 funds also jeopardizes child nutrition programs that depend on bonus commodities as well as The Emergency Food Assistance Program which relies on surplus commodities to supply soup kitchens and food banks and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. As a result of the current economic downturn, State, local and private contributions to food banks and other emergency nutrition facilities are declining while demand for emergency food assistance is on the rise. In fact, a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report shows that the need for emergency food assistance has increased by a sharp 19 percent this year. Pulling back on the Federal commitment to domestic food assistance programs run by faith-based and other institutions at this time would be unjustified and irresponsible. I therefore commend Senator Cochran for including an additional $250 million in Section 32 funds in his disaster assistance amendment. If used carefully, this amount should be sufficient, although a larger amount would have been justified. It is essential that Senate and House conferees protect the intended use of these funds. I join my colleague, Senator Leahy, in requesting that the Administration be directed to use these funds for surplus removals and restoration of funds in the Section 32 account that were diverted to other purposes this fiscal year. the importance of assisting Fox Islands Electric Cooperative in providing affordable and reliable electricity to the residents of north haven and vinalhaven

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Precisely.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Will the Presiding Officer state what is before the body right now?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the omnibus bill that is before us virtually eliminates the Byrne law enforcement grant program. This amendment restores the funding to $500 million to the fiscal year 2002 level. There is no increase, but this at least holds it harmless. On each Senator's desk is a table of how much each State's law enforcement would lose without the Byrne grant. These grants go directly to State and local law enforcement. It pays for regional drug task forces, technology, forensics, prevention, and other valuable antidrug efforts in local communities. I have heard from the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Governors' Association, who have voiced strong support for this amendment. At this crucial time in our history, we cannot afford to reduce the effectiveness of our Nation's law enforcement agencies. I received a letter this morning from the head of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Larry Welch. I do not know him personally. He said: Elimination of Byrne funding would be absolutely devastating to Kansas law enforcement. Mr. President, this amendment is needed by local law enforcement all over the United States, and I hope we adopt it overwhelmingly. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Clinton, Graham, and Schumer be added as cosponsors.

Mr. HARKIN. Is there any time remaining on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. I only need 30 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to add Senator Dorgan as a cosponsor. On the $2 billion that is in the bill, that is for first responders. That does not go to the same entities we are talking about in the Byrne amendment. That is the only point I want to make.

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

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield----

Mr. HARKIN. I will be brief. I just want to buttress what the Senator is saying about real cuts. Listen to this.

Mr. HARKIN. The cut to NIH. We have worked hard here on a bipartisan basis to double the funding in 5 years. This is the last installment this year. The cuts we now have before us will cut $778 million out of the NIH. That is more than the entire budget for research on Alzheimer's disease.