Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a native Iowan and a remarkable athletic champion, Kip Janvrin. Today marks the beginning of the 96th annual Drake Relays, one of the Nation's most prestigious track and field events, held each spring at Drake Stadium in Des Moines. Kip will take the field for the last time in a sport in which he has dominated at Drake for the last 22 years, the decathlon. The Relays are aptly called ``Americas Athletic Classic.'' This will be the last year they are held in the old Drake Stadium. This summer, the stadium will get a dramatic face-lift and overhaul in order to conform to national and international standards. Over the years, the words ``Drake Relays and Kip Janvrin'' have become virtually synonymous. The Drake Relays are one of America's premier track and field venues, and Kip Janvrin is one of America's premier track and field athletes, competing in what is arguably the most demanding event in all of sports. From Jesse Owens to Wilma Rudolph, Gwen Torrance, Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson, the Drake Relays have seen almost all of the great Olympians in track and field. But one Olympian, Kip Janvrin, has been a dominant presence at the event for more than two decades. If the cheers are especially loud for Kip, it is because he is a native son of Iowa. Raised in Panora and a graduate of Simpson College in Indianola, Kip has won the decathalon at the Drake Relays a remarkable 14 times. It is fitting that the last year for the original Drake Stadium will also be the last year that this American original competes in the Drake Relays. Kip is one of the top-ranked decathletes in the world, and he is the oldest active U.S. competitor in this extraordinarily demanding event. The decathlon is a 10-event competition which takes place over two days. It includes the 100 meter dash, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meter dash, 110 meter hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin and 1,500 meter run. Kip began competing in the decathlon in 1983, and quickly excelled in all 10 events. While attending Simpson College, Kip competed many times in the Drake Relays. His first victory came in 1987 in the decathlon, and he went on to add 13 more titles over the next 18 years. His 14 championships at the Drake Relays are the most by any athlete in the history of that event. In 1998, he was inducted into the Drake Relays Hall of Fame. During his years at Simpson, he earned 3 NCAA titles in the decathlon, and 2 more NCAA titles in individual events. He was inducted into the Simpson Hall of Fame in 1998, and the NCAA Division III Track and Field Hall of Fame in 2004. Kip's accomplishments are nothing short of amazing. He has completed more than 80 decathlons. He holds the world records in career victories, scores over 7,000 points, and consecutive finishes. He also holds the world record for the double decathlon, a grueling event involving every event in track and field, except for the marathon and walks. Kip won the decathlon at the 1995 Pan American Games. As a member of the U.S. Olympic team at the 2000 Games in Sydney, Australia, he was the oldest decathlete ever to compete for the United States. In 2001, he won the decathlon at the USA Outdoor Championships. Last year, Kip came in second at the Drake Relays, the first time in 9 years that he did not come in first. However, Kip took the loss in stride, because the victor was his protege, Travis Goepfert, also a native of Panora, IA. Kip is currently in his 15th year as co-head coach at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg. He and his wife, Teresa, have two sons, Jaxon, age 9, and Mason, age 7. So as Kip Janvrin warms up for his final Drake Relays, I extend my congratulations and best wishes. With his self discipline, his commitment to excellence, and his enormous human decency, he represents Iowa at its very best. I wish him success in this, his final, Drake Relays. Win or lose, he will be a true champion.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 7 years ago, Senator Jim Jeffords recruited me to join him as a volunteer for a literacy program in Washington, DC, called Everybody Wins! The program is simple--spend one lunch hour a week at an elementary school reading with a child. This is the ultimate power lunch. It didn't take long and I was hooked. It is the most important and rewarding hour of my week. I also thought this was a program we needed in Iowa. Three years ago, under the leadership of Bob Ligouri, Everybody Wins! Iowa was launched. The Iowa program started as a small pilot program in three central Iowa elementary schools involving 15 students and 15 adults. From those humble beginnings, Everybody Wins! Iowa has grown to over 200 volunteers in 12 central Iowa schools. Starting a brand new non-profit organization is not easy. There were volunteers to recruit, schools to identify, a board to create, paperwork to file and money to raise. Bob Ligouri built a solid foundation for Everybody Wins! Iowa. He adapted the national program to better fit our State and put the organization on the right track for future growth. Everybody Wins! Iowa was fortunate to have the opportunity to work with Bob. He has long experience working with children as a coach of various athletic teams. He also led Special Olympics here in Iowa for 10 years building it into an organization with 10,000 volunteers and athletes. Bob Ligouri served as the executive director and later, as president of the board of directors for Everybody Wins! Iowa for over 3 years. He planted the seeds, nurtured them and watched them blossom into a strong literacy and mentoring organization. As Bob Ligouri moves on to dedicate more time to a new business venture, I express my sincere gratitude for the outstanding job he has done for Everybody Wins! Iowa. His dedication and leadership was critical to the Iowa program and he will be missed.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce my support for an important piece of legislation recently introduced by Senator Dorgan and Senator Graham, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005. This legislation lays out a bold vision for the energy future of our Nation. It takes steps to secure the research, development, demonstration and market transition necessary to deliver on the tremendous promise of a ``hydrogen economy.'' The economy of this country today depends heavily on oil, much of which we must import from countries with hostile and dangerous regimes. This dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, our economy and the environment. We must take the steps now to find alternative sources of energy and new ways of powering everything from cell phones to cars. This bill does exactly that. The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act funds the research and demonstration needed to develop key aspects of a reliable, renewable hydrogen economy. The bill incorporates language from the Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Act, which I introduced earlier in this Congress to provide funding for projects to demonstrate the cost-effective production and distribution of hydrogen from renewable sources, such as ethanol. The bill also adopts several proposals from my Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act, including support for hydrogen transportation corridor demonstrations, such as the Upper Midwest Hydrogen Initiative. This legislation will fund development of better fuel cell technology, of lighter, more efficient ways to store hydrogen on board vehicles, and of less expensive ways of converting renewable energy to hydrogen fuel. It updates the language and sets clearer priorities for the existing hydrogen research program under the Matsunaga Act, and adds important demonstration, commercialization, and market driver mechanisms, using Federal Government procurement to help drive demand for new technology. In order to be most effective, however, we will need to enact the tax incentives necessary to encourage widespread investment, production and utilization of hydrogen. Tax credits for fuel cell vehicles, for hydrogen fueling infrastructure, for hydrogen fuel from renewable sources, and for stationary and portable fuel cells should all be considered as part of a package of support for the hydrogen economy. The measures proposed in this legislation will require a significant Federal investment in our energy future, but with these measures, we can use hydrogen and fuel cell technologies to realize our vision of cars that do not pollute, of power that will not go out, and of true energy security. I urge the support of my colleagues for this visionary legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Akaka, Feingold, Lincoln, Corzine and Kerry, I am introducing the Fair Pay Act. April 19th is Equal Pay Day. Even though the Equal Pay Act was passed more than 40 years ago, women working full time, year-round, still make only 76 cents for every dollar that a man makes. On April 19th, four days after tax returns for 2004 are due, U.S. women will finally reach the earnings mark that their male counterparts achieved by December 31st of last year. April 19th reminds us that the 60 million working women in this country are suffering economically because equal pay is still not a reality. We've got millions of families struggling to make ends meet. The White House and the Republican House leadership believes a $750 billion tax cut for the rich is the solution, a permanent one. I disagree. One way we can put more money in the pockets of working families is to pay women what they're worth. Nearly 40 years after the Equal Pay Act became law, women are still paid only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns. Working women at all income and education levels are affected by the wage gap. In 2003, the GAO found that the pay gap continues to affect women in management and that, for these women, the pay gap has actually widened since 1995. Regardless of education, the impact is the same. These women work as hard as men, but have less money to pay the bills, to put food on the table, or to save for their retirement or their child's education. That is simply wrong and it must end. We must close the wage gap once and for all. First, we need to do a better job by enforcing and strengthening the penalties for the law that demands equal pay for equal work. That's why I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Clinton and Congresswoman DeLauro. However, an even more important part of discrimination against women in the work place is the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ``women's jobs.'' Millions of women today working in female-dominated jobs--as social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are ``equivalent'' in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men, but these women aren't paid the same as men. That's what the Fair Pay Act--that Congresswoman Norton and I are reintroducing today--would address. Unfairly low pay in jobs dominated by women is un-American, it is discriminatory and our bill would make it illegal. Twenty States have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place for their employees, including my State of Iowa. And Iowa had a Republican legislature and Governor when this bill passed into law, so ending wage discrimination against women is a nonpartisan issue. Some say we don't need any more laws; market forces will take care of the wage gap. If we had relied on market forces we would have never passed the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. I first introduced the Fair Pay Act in 1996 after the Iowa Business and Professional Women alerted me to this problem. And as long as I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will continue to fight to pass this important legislation so we can end wage discrimination against women once and for all.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Akaka, Feingold, Lincoln, Corzine and Kerry, I am introducing the Fair Pay Act. April 19th is Equal Pay Day. Even though the Equal Pay Act was passed more than 40 years ago, women working full time, year-round, still make only 76 cents for every dollar that a man makes. On April 19th, four days after tax returns for 2004 are due, U.S. women will finally reach the earnings mark that their male counterparts achieved by December 31st of last year. April 19th reminds us that the 60 million working women in this country are suffering economically because equal pay is still not a reality. We've got millions of families struggling to make ends meet. The White House and the Republican House leadership believes a $750 billion tax cut for the rich is the solution, a permanent one. I disagree. One way we can put more money in the pockets of working families is to pay women what they're worth. Nearly 40 years after the Equal Pay Act became law, women are still paid only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns. Working women at all income and education levels are affected by the wage gap. In 2003, the GAO found that the pay gap continues to affect women in management and that, for these women, the pay gap has actually widened since 1995. Regardless of education, the impact is the same. These women work as hard as men, but have less money to pay the bills, to put food on the table, or to save for their retirement or their child's education. That is simply wrong and it must end. We must close the wage gap once and for all. First, we need to do a better job by enforcing and strengthening the penalties for the law that demands equal pay for equal work. That's why I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Clinton and Congresswoman DeLauro. However, an even more important part of discrimination against women in the work place is the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ``women's jobs.'' Millions of women today working in female-dominated jobs--as social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are ``equivalent'' in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men, but these women aren't paid the same as men. That's what the Fair Pay Act--that Congresswoman Norton and I are reintroducing today--would address. Unfairly low pay in jobs dominated by women is un-American, it is discriminatory and our bill would make it illegal. Twenty States have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place for their employees, including my State of Iowa. And Iowa had a Republican legislature and Governor when this bill passed into law, so ending wage discrimination against women is a nonpartisan issue. Some say we don't need any more laws; market forces will take care of the wage gap. If we had relied on market forces we would have never passed the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. I first introduced the Fair Pay Act in 1996 after the Iowa Business and Professional Women alerted me to this problem. And as long as I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will continue to fight to pass this important legislation so we can end wage discrimination against women once and for all.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Wind Power Tax Incentives Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dayton, Durbin and Lautenburg. This legislation makes it easier for farmers and others around the country to invest in wind power for commercial electricity production. Wind power is a clean, economical, and reliable source of renewable energy abundant on farms and in rural areas of Iowa and elsewhere. With this legislation we can help farmers help themselves by developing a new source of income, and help the rest of the country in the production of renewable energy. Farmers are ready to take on this challenge. A recent study found that 93 percent of corn producers support wind energy. They also strongly support the 2002 farm bill's historic energy title. This regulation complements the farm bill's energy programs and other wind power initiatives currently being considered by this body, and is strongly supported by the American Wind Energy Association and John Deere. Our bill changes Federal tax law to make the section 45 wind production tax credit more widely available to farmers, farm cooperatives, and other investors. Section 45 of the Federal tax code provides a tax credit, currently 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, for electricity produced and sold during the first ten years of the life of a wind turbine. The credit has been extraordinarily successful in spurring greater installation of new wind power capacity, making this sustainable energy source economically feasible. However, certain barriers have prevented many farmers and other investors from qualifying for the credit, thus impeding their participation. It is time to allow full participation by farmers and other investors in this important tax incentive. Our legislation removes barriers by making two important changes to the tax code. First, under current tax law most losses, deductions, and credits from passive investments cannot affect wages or other income or reduce taxes on such income. So a farmer who passively invests in wind energy could not use the credits to offset taxes on farm income. This bill creates an exception to passive loss restrictions for an interest in a wind facility that qualifies for the section 45 credit. The wind facility's loss or tax credits could then offset the income or taxes arising from the taxpayer's farming business. Existing law provides an even broader exception for oil and gas investments, but in contrast to existing law, our proposed exception for wind investment applies only to those with income under $1 million, in order to avoid potential windfalls or abuse. Second, the bill allows cooperatives to invest in qualified wind facilities and pass through the section 45 credits to cooperative members. This will allow farmers to join together and pool their resources in a cooperative and still take advantage of the credit. When we first introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, it also contained a measure providing alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief. This important piece of the equation was incorporated late last year in the American Jobs Creation Act, and passed into law. But there's more to be done. The benefits of this legislation are obvious. Increased renewable energy production lessens our dependence on foreign oil, provides environmental and public health gains, bolsters farm income, creates jobs and boosts economic growth, especially in rural areas. The Nation must move toward energy security, and domestically produced wind power, along with other forms of renewable energy like biofuels, plays an important part in this endeavor. I want to thank Senators Dayton, Durbin and Lautenburg for co- sponsoring this legislation with me. Their leadership in this area will be instrumental to moving the bill forward. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation soon to help secure a brighter renewable energy future for our Nation's farmers and all citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Wind Power Tax Incentives Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dayton, Durbin and Lautenburg. This legislation makes it easier for farmers and others around the country to invest in wind power for commercial electricity production. Wind power is a clean, economical, and reliable source of renewable energy abundant on farms and in rural areas of Iowa and elsewhere. With this legislation we can help farmers help themselves by developing a new source of income, and help the rest of the country in the production of renewable energy. Farmers are ready to take on this challenge. A recent study found that 93 percent of corn producers support wind energy. They also strongly support the 2002 farm bill's historic energy title. This regulation complements the farm bill's energy programs and other wind power initiatives currently being considered by this body, and is strongly supported by the American Wind Energy Association and John Deere. Our bill changes Federal tax law to make the section 45 wind production tax credit more widely available to farmers, farm cooperatives, and other investors. Section 45 of the Federal tax code provides a tax credit, currently 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, for electricity produced and sold during the first ten years of the life of a wind turbine. The credit has been extraordinarily successful in spurring greater installation of new wind power capacity, making this sustainable energy source economically feasible. However, certain barriers have prevented many farmers and other investors from qualifying for the credit, thus impeding their participation. It is time to allow full participation by farmers and other investors in this important tax incentive. Our legislation removes barriers by making two important changes to the tax code. First, under current tax law most losses, deductions, and credits from passive investments cannot affect wages or other income or reduce taxes on such income. So a farmer who passively invests in wind energy could not use the credits to offset taxes on farm income. This bill creates an exception to passive loss restrictions for an interest in a wind facility that qualifies for the section 45 credit. The wind facility's loss or tax credits could then offset the income or taxes arising from the taxpayer's farming business. Existing law provides an even broader exception for oil and gas investments, but in contrast to existing law, our proposed exception for wind investment applies only to those with income under $1 million, in order to avoid potential windfalls or abuse. Second, the bill allows cooperatives to invest in qualified wind facilities and pass through the section 45 credits to cooperative members. This will allow farmers to join together and pool their resources in a cooperative and still take advantage of the credit. When we first introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, it also contained a measure providing alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief. This important piece of the equation was incorporated late last year in the American Jobs Creation Act, and passed into law. But there's more to be done. The benefits of this legislation are obvious. Increased renewable energy production lessens our dependence on foreign oil, provides environmental and public health gains, bolsters farm income, creates jobs and boosts economic growth, especially in rural areas. The Nation must move toward energy security, and domestically produced wind power, along with other forms of renewable energy like biofuels, plays an important part in this endeavor. I want to thank Senators Dayton, Durbin and Lautenburg for co- sponsoring this legislation with me. Their leadership in this area will be instrumental to moving the bill forward. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation soon to help secure a brighter renewable energy future for our Nation's farmers and all citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with extreme disappointment that I come to the floor today. This week the New York Times ran a story detailing a recent agreement signed between Wal-Mart Stores and the Department of Labor. Wal-Mart was fined just over $135,000 for 24 child labor violations that occurred in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Connecticut. One of the most egregious violations involved a boy who injured his thumb while using a chain saw to cut Christmas trees. Others were operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which are illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to work on. The $135,000 figure is a paltry figure that demonstrates DOL's lax enforcement policy. A $135,000 penalty against a company the size of Wal-Mart has the same financial impact as a 40-cent penalty for a million-dollar company. DOL has sent American companies a message with this settlement: violators of child labor laws needn't worry about child labor, even if they are caught. Beyond this minimal fining of Wal-Mart, the Labor Department recently released new regulations that place young workers at greater risk of serious injuries. The new regulations are the first since the May 2002 release of a report detailing dozens of deficiencies in our Nation's child labor laws. The report, published by NIOSH, recommended over 40 changes in child labor laws to better protect America's employed youth from dangerous jobs and equipment. Since the 2002 release, it is estimated that more than 600,000 child workers have been injured in the United States. Among the disappointments in the new regulations, fast food restaurants can now employ 14- and 15-year-olds to operate deep fryers and grills that are cooled to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to NIOSH, however, half of all burn injuries among child laborers occur in fast food restaurants. In another regulatory change, 16- and 17- year-olds are now allowed to load paper balers and compactors that meet specified safety standards. Since 1954, children under the age of 18 have been prohibited from any contact with these machines. As with cooking, compliance with this standard will require vigilance by employers who put youth in contact with these machines. Unfortunately, the Labor Department requires no specific training for young workers under these new regulations. Issuing regulations that sometimes allow exposure to certain machines, equipment, and hot surfaces, but not to others, is confusing both to workers and employers. It is bound to result in young workers being exposed to greater dangers. Additionally, young workers still work at dangerous heights, on tractors, in pesticide handling, and in exposure to lead and silica. These hazards and more are recognized in the NIOSH report but have yet to be addressed by the Labor Department. Sadly, this is not the first instance of Wal-Mart employing dangerous and illegal child labor. In March 2000, the State of Maine fined the company $205,650 for violations of child labor laws in every one of its 20 stores in the State. In January 2004, a weeklong internal audit of 128 stores found 1,371 instances in which minors worked too late at night, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. In the most recent fine levied against Wal-Mart, the average fine per violation is approximately just $5,600. This is about half of DOL's maximum penalty of $11,000 per violation. Wal-Mart banks $285 billion in annual sales. This is not what one would classify a financial hardship. The most disturbing part of Wal-Mart's settlement with the Labor Department is not even the small and insignificant fines, however. The distressing part of the agreement are the special favors handed out to Wal-Mart. The agreement, which was signed on January 6, was not even made public until now. It took a reporter to question officials about concerns raised by several DOL employees that the agreement gave Wal- Mart special favors. Those employees have remained anonymous, however, due to their fear of retaliation. What special favors were given to Wal-Mart? First off, DOL promises to give the retailer 15 days' notice prior to any ``wage and hour'' investigation, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime. As my colleagues will recall, I have tried for the past year to get the Department of Labor to reverse their damning new overtime provisions which stripped overtime pay benefits from thousands of American workers. This administration's Labor Department continues to stand opposed to respecting worker rights, child labor rights, and overtime rights. But Wal-Mart is really their perfect ally, since they do not allow their workers to unionize. DOL's cozying up to Wal-Mart is outrageous and completely unacceptable. By doling out these special privileges, worker rights in America are taking a giant leap backwards. The degree to which the current administration has relaxed worker rights should not be seen in a partisan light. Elizabeth Dole, U.S. Secretary of Labor in the first President Bush administration, launched a crackdown amidst record levels of reported child labor law violations in America in 1990. She reminded all Americans that ``the children of America are our future. The Department of Labor will do everything within its power to protect children against those who violate our child labor laws. The first step in this process is to reassess our fine structure and take immediate action to step up enforcement.'' This was the view of a previous Republican Department of Labor. Sadly, we have regressed. According to John R. Fraser, who was our Government's top wage official under the first President Bush and President Clinton, said the advance-notice provision was unusual. Quoting Mr. Fraser from the New York Times article: Giving the company 15 days' notice of any investigation is very unusual. The language appears to go beyond child labor allegations and cover all wage and hour allegations. It appears to put Wal-Mart in a privileged positions that to my knowledge no other employ has. And an anonymous DOL employee, who is a 20-year veteran of the Department's Wage and Hour Division, said ``with child labor cases involving the use of hazardous machinery, why give 15 days' notice before we can do an investigation? What's the rationale?'' I don't know what the rationale is, Mr. President. There is no viable excuse for this agreement. It flies in the face of our labor laws. It seems more than coincidental that this Labor Department which has taken away overtime pay is now coming close to rewarding a corporation for doing the same. Is it mere coincidence also, then, that Wal-Mart gives more money to the Republican Party than any other corporation in America? Wal-Mart's political action committee, the biggest company PAC in America, gave Republicans 81 percent of its $1.3 million in donations in the past 2 years, the highest proportion of any of the top 25 corporate PACs, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan Washington-based group. Wal-Mart's top three managers each gave the maximum individual contribution of $2,000 to President Bush's campaign last year and Jay Allen, vice president for corporate affairs went one step further. He raised at least $100,000 to reelect the President, earning him the Bush campaign's designation of ``Pioneer.'' I bet he had to work some overtime to fit that into his busy schedule. It is often said that money buys influence in Washington, DC. I certainly hope that is not the case here. I would hope that just because Wal-Mart gives so heavily to the Republican Party they are not given special favors by our Republican President. So Mr. President, I urge the Department of Labor to rethink this agreement. How can child labor be investigated if companies are given 2 weeks' advance notice? Of course they will clean up their act temporarily, but what is to stop them from again regressing into their illegal ways? Nothing. There is no incentive. This agreement was completely unwarranted and should be reversed at the earliest possible time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senators from Florida. Senator Martinez came to me with this last week. We are doing this personal bill because it is so time sensitive. But let's not forget that there are hundreds and thousands of people with disabilities, both physical and mental, who face similar situations. That is why last week when this was brought to my attention, I said to my friend from Florida that we ought to do some kind of a habeas type of proceedings for these people that are at the end of the rope and yet there is no one speaking for them. So while we pass this today for a woman in Florida, I hope when we come back after the recess we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to fashion some kind of legislation that will give people with disabilities the ability to take one last look at their case before the plug is pulled. I hope we can work on that so we don't have case after case after case coming in here, but we can deal with it in a broad, general context to protect the rights of people with disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I join my colleague in thanking Carole Geagley for her service to the U.S. Senate and wishing her well as she embarks in a new phase of her life. Carole is an institution on the Appropriations Committee and not one that will soon be forgotten. She spent the longest period of her Appropriations life assisting the group of offices that staff call ``the Bullpen,'' a crowded space in the Hart Building that holds anywhere from five to seven subcommittee staffs. With different bills moving at different paces through the Senate, that area is often the locus for much activity, and Carole managed those interactions with a calm demeanor. In that capacity, Carole came into contact with many Senators and many Senate offices. She is a storehouse of institutional knowledge, which she imparted to younger staffers when perspective and history needed to be their guides. And just as importantly, she fed them. Every staff birthday was celebrated with a Carole Geagley creation. One thing is certain: Appropriations Committee staff will never eat as well as they did when they worked with Carole. I know that Carole will treat retirement with the same gusto with which she performed her various duties in the Senate. So today we congratulate Carole. We thank her for her longtime service to this institution and we wish the whole Geagley family the best.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague, Senator Lugar, and a bipartisan coalition of 19 other Senators, am introducing important legislation to set an ambitious Renewable Fuels Standard for this country. This legislation will more than double the amount of ethanol and biodiesel in the Nation's fuel supply to at least 8 billion gallons a year by 2012. It firmly commits our Nation to clean sources of domestic energy, and is a bold step toward energy security, a strong rural economy, and a healthier environment. We have a growing problem of energy supplies and prices in this country. Today, 97 percent of our transportation fuel comes from oil, nearly two-thirds of which is from foreign sources. This heavy dependence on petroleum undermines our energy security. It wreaks havoc on consumers, with record high prices now for gasoline. It costs jobs--27,000 lost U.S. jobs for every $1 billion in imported oil--and threatens our environment. A full one-third of greenhouse gases now come from vehicle emissions. We have a choice. We can stand by and fuel our addiction to foreign oil, or we can make an aggressive shift toward clean, domestic renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. In the 108th Congress, we approved an RFS of 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. At the time, this represented a strong push for renewable fuels. But since that time, renewable fuels production in this country has grown dramatically. Domestic ethanol production grew 21 percent in 2004 to 3.4 billion gallons, helping to buffer rising crude oil prices. The Environment and Public Works Committee, recognizing this success, reported yesterday a modestly increased RFS of 6 billion gallons a year by 2012. I applaud this step forward, but we can do more. The Energy Future Coalition has said that ``increased production of domestic renewable fuels is the single most important step the United States could take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil,'' and I agree. Our Nation already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol a year, almost a third of it in Iowa. The biofuels industry's output is on track to surpass even our ambitious target of 8 billion gallons a year by 2012. Several studies further indicate that renewable fuels could provide more than 25 percent of our transportation fuel by 2025. Our bill will ensure that market demand for these fuels grows accordingly. Many of the biofuels plants that will be built will be farmer-owned, bringing tremendous added value to our rural economies. For example, according to a recent study, each typical ethanol plant built in the United States creates 700 jobs, expands the local economic base by over $140 million, and increases the local corn price by 5 to 10 cents a bushel. Iowa's ethanol plants are expected to contribute $4 billion annually to our state's economy once all are in production. This RFS is expected to create over 200,000 new jobs nationwide, add nearly $200 billion to our GDP, and do more to reduce foreign oil dependence than all of the oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge could possibly do. This legislation has built-in flexibility through a system of tradable credits for refiners who exceed their minimum requirement. It takes strong measures to protect air and water quality, and it rewards production of second-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol that promise tremendous value to farmers, consumers and the environment. For these reasons, our bill has generated strong support from a broad range of interests. I have here a letter endorsing our bill signed by more than a dozen groups, including the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, the National Renewable Fuels Association, the Energy Future Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, and many others. Farmers and biofuel producers are ready to lead our Nation toward a future based on renewable energy. I sincerely hope that Congress and the administration will get behind commonsense energy policy and support this ambitious RFS. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with the letter, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment restores the Perkins Vocational Education Program and pays for it by eliminating two tax provisions that haven't even come into force yet. We are not raising anyone's taxes. We are not rolling back anything. There are two items in the 2001 tax bill called PEP and Pease. They start next year. They don't have to go into effect. Who gets the benefits? Ninety-seven percent of the benefits go to people making more than $200,000 a year, and 54 percent go to people making over $1 million a year. I am just saying, don't let that go into effect. That saves $146 billion over 10 years. This amendment would reduce the deficit with the money, and also put the money into restoring the Perkins Vocational Education Program.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support this amendment because it would prevent the damage this budget resolution seeks to inflict on Americans throughout our country in all walks of life who benefit from the whole range of programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, where I am proud to serve as ranking Democratic member. It is said that the cuts to these programs required by this resolution are no cause for worry, no sweat. With respect, I must say the facts are otherwise. The 2002 farm bill has already suffered serious cuts in three annual appropriations cycles. This budget resolution contains further and even deeper cuts--both in appropriations and through budget reconciliation instructions to our committee and the House Agriculture Committee. To be sure, the $2.8 billion reconciliation instruction in this resolution is less than in the President's budget, and it is less than the $5.3 billion reconciliation instruction in the House's version of the budget resolution. However, I would note that the Senate resolution does assume additional budget reductions of $2.7 billion, so the total assumed budget savings from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry is $5.5 billion in this resolution. The budget reconciliation figures in these resolutions are a direct assault on the progress we made in writing a balanced farm bill in 2002 that covered a whole range of needs from helping protect farm income, to providing food to poor families and children, to improving conservation and environmental practices, to promoting farm-based renewable energy, to increasing food and agriculture research, to assisting rural economic development and others. We need to protect that balance. Where is the budgetary justification for making these cuts and upsetting the balance we struck and the progress we made in the farm bill? There is no justification. We have been fiscally responsible in the programs falling in our committee's jurisdiction. We were provided a budget allocation to write the 2002 farm bill and we stayed within it. We repaired Freedom to Farm and reinstated a countercyclical commodity program. Thanks to that countercyclical feature, the commodity programs have cost some $15 billion less than they were expected to cost over the first three years of the 2002 farm bill. We also carefully and responsibly invested some of our farm bill budget allocation to strengthen programs and adopt innovative new initiatives in conservation, agricultural trade, rural development, nutrition, agricultural research and renewable energy. The direct harm from these budget cuts would be serious enough, but in addition they can only upset carefully struck balances in the 2002 farm bill and reopen old arguments and old fault lines. We had broadly based bipartisan support for the 2002 farm bill, but this budget resolution threatens to tear that all apart. This resolution would pit one group and its interests against others--one title of the farm bill against others. As a result, we would be looking to the next farm bill with a reduced budget baseline and a fractured farm bill coalition, which would surely make it all the harder and more contentious to write the next farm bill. Less than 3 years ago we passed a farm bill to repair our Nation's farm income protection system. It would be irresponsible to weaken that system now and create new uncertainty--especially when we need bargaining leverage in the midst of global agricultural trade negotiations in the WTO. Farm commodity programs are less than a half of a percent of the Federal budget. It is terribly misguided to propose that cutting farm income protection can significantly help solve Federal budget deficits. Nor is there money to be spared in the farm bill's conservation, rural economic development, research or renewable energy initiatives-- some of the most innovative and forward-looking parts of the 2002 farm bill which have already suffered the most and seem to be at the greatest risk of further cuts. These initiatives constitute investments in the future of our Nation's food and agriculture system, our rural communities and our environment and natural resources. Believe me, we are not investing too much in these initiatives. We are investing far too little. This resolution is especially threatening to Federal food assistance and nutrition programs if history is our guide. The last time there was budget reconciliation, recipients of Federal food assistance took the heaviest hit of anyone. Think about the fairness of that. Those cuts did not come from waste, fraud, and abuse, but instead were taken from across-the-board benefit reductions that affected nearly all recipient households, including families with children, the working poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities. This year we are hearing the same claims about waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal nutrition programs. In reality, we have worked hard to improve the program integrity of nutrition programs, and we have done it on a bipartisan basis. The error rate in the Food Stamp Program is now at an all-time low. There is not a realistic way to wring significant budget savings out of waste, fraud and abuse in nutrition programs. It is not there. Instead, this resolution would take away food from American families, most of them with children and most of them working or trying to find work. We should not add new hardship to the lives of working American families by cutting food assistance programs. For all of these reasons, I support and am proud to cosponsor the amendment of Senator Baucus and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague, Senator Lugar, and a bipartisan coalition of 19 other Senators, am introducing important legislation to set an ambitious Renewable Fuels Standard for this country. This legislation will more than double the amount of ethanol and biodiesel in the Nation's fuel supply to at least 8 billion gallons a year by 2012. It firmly commits our Nation to clean sources of domestic energy, and is a bold step toward energy security, a strong rural economy, and a healthier environment. We have a growing problem of energy supplies and prices in this country. Today, 97 percent of our transportation fuel comes from oil, nearly two-thirds of which is from foreign sources. This heavy dependence on petroleum undermines our energy security. It wreaks havoc on consumers, with record high prices now for gasoline. It costs jobs--27,000 lost U.S. jobs for every $1 billion in imported oil--and threatens our environment. A full one-third of greenhouse gases now come from vehicle emissions. We have a choice. We can stand by and fuel our addiction to foreign oil, or we can make an aggressive shift toward clean, domestic renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. In the 108th Congress, we approved an RFS of 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. At the time, this represented a strong push for renewable fuels. But since that time, renewable fuels production in this country has grown dramatically. Domestic ethanol production grew 21 percent in 2004 to 3.4 billion gallons, helping to buffer rising crude oil prices. The Environment and Public Works Committee, recognizing this success, reported yesterday a modestly increased RFS of 6 billion gallons a year by 2012. I applaud this step forward, but we can do more. The Energy Future Coalition has said that ``increased production of domestic renewable fuels is the single most important step the United States could take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil,'' and I agree. Our Nation already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol a year, almost a third of it in Iowa. The biofuels industry's output is on track to surpass even our ambitious target of 8 billion gallons a year by 2012. Several studies further indicate that renewable fuels could provide more than 25 percent of our transportation fuel by 2025. Our bill will ensure that market demand for these fuels grows accordingly. Many of the biofuels plants that will be built will be farmer-owned, bringing tremendous added value to our rural economies. For example, according to a recent study, each typical ethanol plant built in the United States creates 700 jobs, expands the local economic base by over $140 million, and increases the local corn price by 5 to 10 cents a bushel. Iowa's ethanol plants are expected to contribute $4 billion annually to our state's economy once all are in production. This RFS is expected to create over 200,000 new jobs nationwide, add nearly $200 billion to our GDP, and do more to reduce foreign oil dependence than all of the oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge could possibly do. This legislation has built-in flexibility through a system of tradable credits for refiners who exceed their minimum requirement. It takes strong measures to protect air and water quality, and it rewards production of second-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol that promise tremendous value to farmers, consumers and the environment. For these reasons, our bill has generated strong support from a broad range of interests. I have here a letter endorsing our bill signed by more than a dozen groups, including the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, the National Renewable Fuels Association, the Energy Future Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, and many others. Farmers and biofuel producers are ready to lead our Nation toward a future based on renewable energy. I sincerely hope that Congress and the administration will get behind commonsense energy policy and support this ambitious RFS. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with the letter, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

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.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 7\1/2\ minutes. I yield myself 5 minutes. The budget resolution for 2006, which we are now considering, essentially calls for the elimination of funding for an enormously effective and popular education program called the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, which we all know as Voc Ed, vocational education. This amendment restores the funding to Perkins vocational education and also reduces the deficit by billions of dollars in the future. The costs of these needed steps, restoring vocational education and reducing the deficit, are offset by rescinding two new tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts which have not even gone into effect yet, the so- called PEP and Pease phase-out provisions. The budget resolution currently calls, under the President's proposal, for eliminating funding for vocational education while allowing these two new tax cuts, which will cost $23 billion in the coming 5 years and $146 billion in 10 years that follow, with 97 percent of the benefits going to those earning at least $200,000 a year. That is what this chart shows. The distribution of tax benefits under the phase-out of PEP and Pease, 54 percent go to people making over $1 million when it is fully phased in. Another 43 percent go to those making $200,000 to $1 million a year--97 percent of all the benefits of these tax provisions which hasn't even gone into effect yet. It goes into effect next year unless we do something about it. Ninety-seven percent goes to people making over $200,000 a year. We have choices. To govern is to choose. We have a choice. We recently restored the Vocational Education Act, the Perkins Act, on a bipartisan vote of 99-0. We know that vocational education makes possible a broad range of technical education programs and vocational programs for millions of young people and adults. Vocational education combines classroom instruction, hands-on lab work, on-the-job training, and it is a true lifeline for students at risk of dropping out of school. In Iowa alone, elimination of the Perkins Vocational Education Program would directly impact 93,000 high school students and more than 337,000 community college students. The impact nationwide would be a disaster for millions of students. The only way that we can be assured of saving vocational education, the Perkins Program, is by adding more overall funding to the education budget for that purpose. That is it. That is the only way it can be assured. And that is what my amendment accomplishes. But, moreover, my amendment reduces the deficit as well. By rescinding these two tax cuts which haven't taken effect yet--they take effect next year--and after they would fully be in effect, we then begin to save $146 billion over the next 10 years. When the phase out of PEP and Pease, as they are called, were passed in 2001, the phase-out--I guess the case could be made that they were affordable. Thanks to the budget surpluses that President Bush inherited from President Clinton, we were looking at a cumulative surplus of over $5 trillion over the coming decade, enough to eliminate the national debt and then some. That was then and this is now. Now we are looking at projected deficits in excess of $200 billion a year for as far as the eye can see--annual deficits in excess of $500 billion a year, a decade from now, if we keep on this way. It makes good sense to eliminate these two proposed tax cuts. We are not rescinding anything that has gone into effect. They start next year. There is no reason they should start next year. Let us have some common sense here. This amendment says we will fully restore vocational education and we will reduce the deficit. And the people who are making over $200,000 a year I don't think really need this tax cut. People making over $1 million a year don't need it. But I will tell you who does need it--kids who need vocational education in the United States. And, the American people need to avoid an added $146 billion deficit explosion that will occur in the decade after these tax provisions take effect in 2010. That is who needs this. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I respectfully answer my friend from New Hampshire, first talking about priorities. This is priorities, all right. You want a tax provision that goes into effect, starts phasing in next year that 97 percent of the benefits go to people making over $200,000 a year; or do you want to fund vocational exercise? It is as simple as that. Who gets these tax breaks? When fully phased in, those with over $1 million income, you get $20,000 a year, and if you are under $75,000, you get a big fat zero. It is about priorities. My friend from New Hampshire said something about raising taxes. All we are saying is a tax that has been in effect for 15 years will continue and will not be phased out. We are not raising anyone's taxes at all. Third, I point out this is the first budget in 10 years that has a reduction in education. My friend from New Hampshire says, well, we can make the decision in Appropriations about what we want to do. It is like this. This is what my friend from New Hampshire has presented. It is like a puzzle as this chart shows. We have Pell grants, we have afterschool, we have title I, special education, bilingual, impact aid, all in this box. We have the money for that. He says, well, if you want to put voc in, put it in, but if you put it in, take a piece out. Would the Senator from New Hampshire tell us which of these to cut? Ed tech or TRIO are all left out, but this is the box we are in. The Senator from New Hampshire says, well, you can put it back in. But that means we have to take out special education or title I. The only way to do it, I say, is to enlarge the box. And that is what we do with this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I just sent to the desk. It is pending. I will not call it up now or ask unanimous consent, but I will do so at some point, probably tomorrow. I want to take this time to at least lay out the reasons for this amendment and what it does, because I know what the crunch will be like tomorrow when we come back here. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 basically eliminates funding for an enormously effective and popular education program called the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The straightforward purposes of my amendment, which I will offer for myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Murray, and others, are, first, to restore funding to the Perkins Vocational Education Act; second, to reduce the deficit; and, third, to offset the costs by rescinding two tax-cut provisions in the 2001 tax bill. These tax-cut provisions, the so-called PEP and Pease phaseout provisions, are scheduled to start taking effect next year for the first time. President Kennedy used to say that to govern is to choose. Right now the budget resolution chooses very unwisely. It eliminates funding for a critical education program, vocational education, while allowing to stand two new tax cuts. While these two new tax cuts cost $23 billion in the first 5 years, after that the costs explode. They will cost at least $146 billion in lost revenue in the coming decade, with 97 percent of the benefits going to those earning at least $200,000 a year. This is the wrong choice. The budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of the American people. Overall, the budget resolution would cut funding for education, the first cut in education funding in 10 years. It underfunds the President's No Child Left Behind Act by $12 billion. It leaves behind nearly 3 million children who could be fully funded and fully served if title I were funded at the authorized level. And, as I said, it eliminates all the funding for the Perkins Vocational Education Act. This is one I am particularly concerned about. It is a program that was just reauthorized in the Senate on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 99 to 0. The Perkins Act makes possible a broad range of vocational and technical education programs for millions of young people and adults. It is a true lifeline for students at risk of dropping out of school. For millions of these at-risk students, vocational education programs are relevant, and they are meaningful. They give kids a reason to stick it out until graduation, maybe to go on to a community college, and they lead to good, solid jobs. In Iowa alone, elimination of the Perkins Vocational Education Program would impact 93,000 high school students and more than 37,000 community college students. The impact nationwide would be a disaster for millions of students. We are eliminating the Perkins Vocational Education Program for two new tax cuts? Overwhelmingly for the most affluent? This makes no sense. In fact, it borders on the obscene. Our friends on the other side might claim the budget resolution does not expressly eliminate the vocational education program, but the reality is this budget resolution effectively endorses the budget proposed by President Bush, and President Bush endorsed eliminating the Perkins program. So there are only two ways to retain funding for vocational education under this budget resolution: either cut other educational programs or increase the overall allocation for education. This chart here shows what I mean. Right here basically you have a puzzle. We put it all together. This is education. We have title I, we have afterschool centers, we have special ed, bilingual ed, impact aid, Pell grants--all the things that make up our education plan. What is left out? Vocational education, ed tech, TRIO, Safe and Drug- free Schools, arts education. These are left out. Someone on the Budget Committee might say, we didn't say that voc ed couldn't be funded, but here are all the things we fund. If you want to put voc ed back into the puzzle, what do you take out? Because, you see, this is the limit. We only have this much money. If you put voc ed in, do we take the money away from title I or do we take it away from Pell grants? How about special ed; do we take money away from special ed to put it back in? Or do we make the square bigger and then put it in, so we don't take anything away from the educational programs that are already there. That is exactly what my amendment accomplishes. We add more overall funding to the educational budget. How do we do this? Where do we get the money? My amendment offsets the cost of restoring the Perkins program. It also reduces the deficit by rescinding two tax cuts that have not even taken effect yet. Both of these tax cuts, the so-called PEP and Pease provisions, were enacted in 2001 and they start next year. We have a unique opportunity. We are not proposing to repeal or undo a tax cut that is already in effect. Rather, we are saying that because of radically transformed budgetary circumstances--that is the huge debt we are in, the deficits we are running up--we are not going to go forward with two new tax cuts that haven't even taken effect yet, two new tax cuts we can no longer afford. When PEP and Pease were put in in 2000, the argument was made that we had all of these budget surpluses that were left over from President Clinton, and we could afford it. That was then and this is now. Because of the surge in Federal spending, because of the deficits since President Bush has taken office, the surpluses left by President Clinton are gone. Instead, we are looking at projected deficits in excess of $200 billion a year, and annual deficits in excess of $500 billion a year decades from now, unless we straighten out our house. It makes good sense to stop these two new tax cuts from going into effect next year--$146 billion that this will cost us over 10 years. Who gets the gravy? Here it is right here. Under PEP and Pease, the tax cuts that start next year, for those making over $1 million, when they are phased in, $19,234 a year; $500,000 to $1 million, $4,000 a year; under $75,000 a year, you get nothing, zero. In fact, if these two new tax cuts go into effect next year, 97 percent of all the benefits will go to people making over $200,000 a year. Fifty-four percent will go to people making over $1 million a year. We can't afford these tax cuts. There are two things we can't afford. We can't afford these tax cuts, and we can't afford to underfund and to eliminate the Perkins vocational education bill. We now have a unique opportunity to rescind these tax cuts before they even go into effect. The Perkins program is a lifeline to low-income Americans struggling to obtain job skills, the essential rung on the ladder of opportunity. I also refer to this editorial that was in the Washington Post, February 22, last month. ``PEP, Pease, Presidents.'' I will refer to this. It says: The cuts would repeal two provisions enacted as part of the first President Bush's deficit reduction plan. The provisions--known as PEP, for Personal Exemption Phaseout, and Pease, for its author, the late Rep. Donald J. Pease of Ohio--essentially make more income of wealthy Americans subject to taxation. As they said: Given the deficits that have piled up on his watch, and the growing costs of war in Iraq, it makes sense to ask: Why does President Bush think this tax break is necessary? It is not necessary. It hasn't even started yet. I will lay 10 to 1 that not one Senator in this Senate on either side of the aisle has ever been contacted by someone making over $200,000 a year who says we have to have it. Nonsense. My amendment basically says we are not repealing these, we are just saying these two tax cuts won't go into effect next year. We will save a lot of money. We will put that money into deficit reduction, and we will put the money into restoring Perkins funding. We just recently voted 99 to 0 to reauthorize the Perkins program. Every Senator said, yes, we need vocational education. The President sends his budget out and says get rid of the whole thing. And this budget has the same money figures in it for education that the President wants. Now is our opportunity. We can vote to not let these tax cuts go into effect. We can do two good things: Reduce the deficit and make sure we continue with vocational education in this country. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Washington Post editorial.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill originally introduced in the 106th Congress that seeks to create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy at the Department of Labor. When I first introduced this bill, it was just a good idea. Now, it has become an absolute necessity. Since 2000, unimaginable pension loss horror stories have cropped up in the wake of major corporate bankruptcies like Enron and WorldCom. People have lost their guaranteed pensions to mergers and acquisitions and to misinformation and to just plain irresponsibility. On March 3, the New York Times reported that companies are still desperately seeking ways to scrape funds out of their pensions--despite market downfalls and despite the dire situation at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. And who ultimately ends up paying the price when the company ends up bailing on its obligation? Pension plan participants pay. Many of these people have absolutely nowhere to turn. People who have a genuine legal claim to their pension, but have been unfairly denied it, can end up spending countless hours calling phone number after phone number and getting the run around, and maybe receiving technical assistance years later. Individual pension plans are complex, as are the laws that govern them. Currently, multiple Federal agencies share jurisdiction over pension law. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and pensioners don't get help in navigating the government's pension bureaucracy. This office would accelerate good public policy. Several years ago, I heard from an employee of a large technology manufacturer that gave early retirees the choice between taking either an annuity of $1,470 per month, or an annuity of $200 per month plus $107,300 as a lump sum, both payable at age 55. While the lump sum package may appear more lucrative at first glance, the annuity option for a given employee had a value of approximately $228,000--more than 80 percent greater than the lump sum option touted by the employer. I also heard from a 53 year old man with 26 years of service. He shared with me the complicated summary of his pension options he received from his employer. The first line offers a $423,000 lump sum, which looks like it is based on the value of the $3,140 per month annuity he would normally receive. However, the true actuarial value of the annuity option turns out to be closer to $511,000. Stated another way, the $423,000 lump sum offer is equivalent to a monthly benefit of $2,590, almost $500 a month less than the annuity option would provide. People lost half the value of their pensions to this kind of misinformation, many of whom never found out how they had been hurt. Hearing stories like that prompted me to write to the Treasury requesting that they close this loophole and require that employees get an apples-to-apples comparison of their benefits, and Treasury did. However, how many fewer people would have been given misleading information about their pensions if there were someone within the government specifically charged with seeking out problems like these? In the years that I have been working to fight age discriminatory practices sometimes used when converting from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance pensions, I heard from a number of people who lost huge amounts of money in their pensions to ``wear away,'' again, often not realizing what had happened to them until their nest egg was gone. For example, take Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands of people who figured out how much they lost in their cash balance conversion. 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. 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. Good public policy on pensions should never, ever have allowed that. People need someone on their side, because large corporations have plenty of people on their side. This office would not only provide technical assistance to participants, but would serve as a voice to advocate for participants' rights in general within the Administration. Corporations who cheat employees out of their pensions should not be able to wait for a retiree to notice that they've been taken. There should be someone in the Federal government actively pursuing companies who use their employees' pension plans as their own private piggy bank. The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants. Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants. Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees. Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions. And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans. We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will prevent workers from losing a large chunk of their pension when they work for a company that sells their division. This legislation is prompted by articles written by Mary Williams Walsh in the New York Times outlining the story of how a group of workers in Olean, NY lost $25 million in promised benefits when their division was acquired and then spun off. Current law says that if a company wants to amend their pension plan, they have to give workers the share of their early retirement subsidy that they have already earned. However, a company doesn't have to do that if your division is bought and sold--even if the workers are in the same building, sitting at the same desk, and doing the same job the whole time. That's just ridiculous. In this case, Halliburton purchased a division of Dresser Industries, and seventeen months later spun off the Olean, NY division, netting $215 million. They treated those employees as if they had resigned and gone to work for Ingersoll-Rand. While employees who were 55 years old were kept whole, anyone younger lost up to half the value of their pension overnight, without being informed. They realized what had happened in June 2002 when they got notices in the mail telling them that they had 90 days to either collect a much smaller benefit than they had anticipated, or lose their right to a lump sum payment forever. Some recent retirees were even told that they got paid too much, and had to give back pension money they already received. Meanwhile, the CEO during that period, now Vice President Dick Cheney, got a special pension deal from the board totaling an estimated $10 million in benefits, even though he hadn't worked there long enough to qualify for a pension under the usual rules. This is a completely unconscionable way to cheat hard working people out of their promised pension benefits. My will would simply require that companies must follow the same rules about applying credits toward pension under mergers and acquisitions that they do under any other kind of pension plan amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill originally introduced in the 106th Congress that seeks to create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy at the Department of Labor. When I first introduced this bill, it was just a good idea. Now, it has become an absolute necessity. Since 2000, unimaginable pension loss horror stories have cropped up in the wake of major corporate bankruptcies like Enron and WorldCom. People have lost their guaranteed pensions to mergers and acquisitions and to misinformation and to just plain irresponsibility. On March 3, the New York Times reported that companies are still desperately seeking ways to scrape funds out of their pensions--despite market downfalls and despite the dire situation at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. And who ultimately ends up paying the price when the company ends up bailing on its obligation? Pension plan participants pay. Many of these people have absolutely nowhere to turn. People who have a genuine legal claim to their pension, but have been unfairly denied it, can end up spending countless hours calling phone number after phone number and getting the run around, and maybe receiving technical assistance years later. Individual pension plans are complex, as are the laws that govern them. Currently, multiple Federal agencies share jurisdiction over pension law. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and pensioners don't get help in navigating the government's pension bureaucracy. This office would accelerate good public policy. Several years ago, I heard from an employee of a large technology manufacturer that gave early retirees the choice between taking either an annuity of $1,470 per month, or an annuity of $200 per month plus $107,300 as a lump sum, both payable at age 55. While the lump sum package may appear more lucrative at first glance, the annuity option for a given employee had a value of approximately $228,000--more than 80 percent greater than the lump sum option touted by the employer. I also heard from a 53 year old man with 26 years of service. He shared with me the complicated summary of his pension options he received from his employer. The first line offers a $423,000 lump sum, which looks like it is based on the value of the $3,140 per month annuity he would normally receive. However, the true actuarial value of the annuity option turns out to be closer to $511,000. Stated another way, the $423,000 lump sum offer is equivalent to a monthly benefit of $2,590, almost $500 a month less than the annuity option would provide. People lost half the value of their pensions to this kind of misinformation, many of whom never found out how they had been hurt. Hearing stories like that prompted me to write to the Treasury requesting that they close this loophole and require that employees get an apples-to-apples comparison of their benefits, and Treasury did. However, how many fewer people would have been given misleading information about their pensions if there were someone within the government specifically charged with seeking out problems like these? In the years that I have been working to fight age discriminatory practices sometimes used when converting from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance pensions, I heard from a number of people who lost huge amounts of money in their pensions to ``wear away,'' again, often not realizing what had happened to them until their nest egg was gone. For example, take Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands of people who figured out how much they lost in their cash balance conversion. 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. 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. Good public policy on pensions should never, ever have allowed that. People need someone on their side, because large corporations have plenty of people on their side. This office would not only provide technical assistance to participants, but would serve as a voice to advocate for participants' rights in general within the Administration. Corporations who cheat employees out of their pensions should not be able to wait for a retiree to notice that they've been taken. There should be someone in the Federal government actively pursuing companies who use their employees' pension plans as their own private piggy bank. The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants. Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants. Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees. Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions. And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans. We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will prevent workers from losing a large chunk of their pension when they work for a company that sells their division. This legislation is prompted by articles written by Mary Williams Walsh in the New York Times outlining the story of how a group of workers in Olean, NY lost $25 million in promised benefits when their division was acquired and then spun off. Current law says that if a company wants to amend their pension plan, they have to give workers the share of their early retirement subsidy that they have already earned. However, a company doesn't have to do that if your division is bought and sold--even if the workers are in the same building, sitting at the same desk, and doing the same job the whole time. That's just ridiculous. In this case, Halliburton purchased a division of Dresser Industries, and seventeen months later spun off the Olean, NY division, netting $215 million. They treated those employees as if they had resigned and gone to work for Ingersoll-Rand. While employees who were 55 years old were kept whole, anyone younger lost up to half the value of their pension overnight, without being informed. They realized what had happened in June 2002 when they got notices in the mail telling them that they had 90 days to either collect a much smaller benefit than they had anticipated, or lose their right to a lump sum payment forever. Some recent retirees were even told that they got paid too much, and had to give back pension money they already received. Meanwhile, the CEO during that period, now Vice President Dick Cheney, got a special pension deal from the board totaling an estimated $10 million in benefits, even though he hadn't worked there long enough to qualify for a pension under the usual rules. This is a completely unconscionable way to cheat hard working people out of their promised pension benefits. My will would simply require that companies must follow the same rules about applying credits toward pension under mergers and acquisitions that they do under any other kind of pension plan amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment basically protects workers who are able to take a priority preference in back wages, vacation pay, severance pay, and sick pay when a company goes bankrupt. Under the bill, there is a limit of $10,000. That is fine; I do not touch that. This amendment lifts the 180 days. For example, let's say a worker has worked for a company for 10 years and they get $500 a year severance pay. The company goes bankrupt. Normally, you get $5,000, but because of the 180 days, you only get $250 for which you get a priority; otherwise, you get in line with the other creditors. What this does is lift the 180 days. There are other examples. If a farmer today has a warehouse receipt for grain in an elevator, there is no time limit on that. They can go 2, 3, 4 years. For alimony there is no time limit. For child support, there is no time limit. There ought not be an arbitrary time limit for a worker who has backpay, sick pay, or severance pay coming. That is all this amendment does. I cannot believe the House will not send this to the President if we adopt this amendment. Do not even try to sell that to me.