Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for those very kind words. I, too, wish him the happiest of Father's Days this week. I will be privileged to have at least one of my children home, and my wife. The other one will not be there, but I am sure we will be connected by telephone and talking on Father's Day. The Senator from West Virginia has taken great pride in his family. We have shared in the past some of the tragedies that have happened to the Senator from West Virginia in his own family. I know how deeply the Senator from West Virginia feels about family and what family means to Americans in this country. Through the example of the Senator from West Virginia, through his example of public service, I say to the young pages, through his example of public service through his entire lifetime, through his service to his State but most importantly to his wife Erma and his family, that is the example we all need to follow. It is a great example. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my remarks I am going to give now on health care and the health care system in America will not be as filled with rhapsody and melodic utterances as what we have heard from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I noticed all the pages, I say to my friend from West Virginia, listening raptly to the Senator's comments. I can understand why. There is no one who can express himself or herself in such vivid terms, in such a vivid way that brings to life his beloved State of West Virginia, his youth, and his experiences. No one can do it and paint the picture with such clarity and color and meaning as the Senator from West Virginia.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Jenelle Krishnamoorthy be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Peter McElligott of my staff be granted floor privileges during today's debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Bond from Missouri, and I are on the floor today to basically work with the committee to do the right thing. We are here to simply add former atomic workers, nuclear workers, who worked in our ammunition plants in Missouri and Iowa, to a group of workers who are already eligible for special compensation. This category is already in effect for workers from Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, and Tennessee. But since the original legislation was passed in 2000, we have learned a great deal more about the facilities in Iowa and Missouri which makes it necessary to include these workers as well. I spoke at length on this issue yesterday on the floor. I will not go over those again. I want to make a couple of brief points today. In Iowa, between 1947 and 1975, almost 4,000 people were employed handling nuclear weapons. So great was the secrecy that 5 and a half years later we still don't know exactly to what the workers were exposed. At the time the bill passed in 2000, Congress recognized that there were likely to be more situations where it was simply not feasible to reconstruct workers' doses because the records don't exist, or they are inadequate, because it might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of workers that they would all be dead before we would have an answer to determine their eligibility. That is precisely the situation we find ourselves in in Iowa, and the workers also find themselves in in Missouri. Speaking just about the Iowa facility, the Army ammunition facility in Burlington was in operation from 1947 to 1975. The people who worked there and who are still alive today are elderly. Many are sick and many have cancers. They are ill and they are dying. Yet almost 4 years into this program, only 38 Iowans have received compensation. That is because after 3 years of hard work by researchers at the University of Iowa, and at the same time by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, we have learned that Iowa has the worst records documenting worker exposure to radioactivity of any facility in the country. Without good documents, you simply cannot do good dose reconstruction. When Congress passed this law, they explicitly said workers could be added to a cohort when the records didn't exist to make it feasible to do dose reconstruction. Now, NIOSH has concluded that there are no records anywhere that document the level of internal radiation exposures to which workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant were exposed. None, no records. With regard to external doses, up until 1968, the highest percent of the DOE employees who were monitored was 7 percent, or 23 workers out of a workforce of 800. It is time to admit that both in Iowa and Missouri we have two sites where it simply is not possible to perform dose reconstruction. The Government simply doesn't know what went on at these facilities and to what the workers were exposed. That makes it impossible to do timely dose reconstruction. Some may say the law provides for people to be added to a cohort administratively. Well, 10 days ago, after 3\1/2\ years of waiting, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule setting out the procedure. This only occurred as a result of congressional pressure. The process set out under the rule is likely to take several more years because there are no statutory deadlines that must be met. So the workers who worked there, who had high exposure to radioactive materials, who are sick and many have had multiple cancers, quite frankly, cannot wait any longer. We took an important step in fixing about half of this program yesterday with the Bunning amendment. Now it is time to finish the job and give the workers in Iowa and Missouri the same ability to be compensated as those workers in Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, and Tennessee. Again, my colleague from Missouri has an amendment now that is being worked out. We hope it is going to be accepted once all of the T's are crossed and I's are dotted. Basically, it is an equity argument to make sure these workers will be treated fairly and in the same manner as workers who were exposed in other places. I have met with these workers, as Senator Bond has, and it just tears your heart out. These were patriotic individuals. I have talked to some of them who told me they were told what they did was top secret and they could not discuss it with anybody, not even their doctors. So years later, because they were patriotic, hard-working Americans, they never told anyone about the kind of work they did. In fact, I had to work with some of my colleagues a few years ago to get the Department of Defense to get them a written document that said it is OK for them now to talk about what they did. So, as a result of that, we are now getting a clearer picture of the kind of work these individuals did. They handled highly radioactive materials. Many times, they did not even wear dose badges. They had no idea what they were handling. When you listen to workers talk about how, when they worked, certain things would happen to them, such as the hairs on their arms and legs would stand up when they were getting near this material, they had no idea what it was. Sadly, many of them have already died. Sadly, many of them died at an early age and they left young children. Some of their kids who are alive today tell me about how their father died and how they had all these illnesses and sores and cancers. Many died when they were in their forties or early fifties. They had no idea it was because of the radiation exposure they had when they worked in those plants. I think it is time for us to do this, acknowledge their patriotic service, the work they did, the dangers they were exposed to and were never really told about. What Senator Bond and I are seeking to do is simply make this equitable. There is no reason why his workers in Missouri, or mine in Iowa, should be treated any differently than those in the four States I mentioned. I believe those in the four States should be compensated, too, and they have been. We thought ours were going to be compensated, but in the intervening 4 years, we found out that no records exist. So they cannot do the dose reconstruction. They have tried to get around it, but they cannot. So we are left on the floor of the Senate to make this equity argument in the hope the Senate will concur and allow us to move ahead in a way that, hopefully, before the year is out, we will be able to include these workers in this special cohort that will allow them to be compensated out of a fund that was established 4 years ago to compensate these workers. The fund still has, as I am told, plenty of money in it. So we are not actually spending any new money. We are simply adding some people to the fund to be compensated. I am hopeful we can get this all worked out and that we can accept this amendment and move ahead to adequately compensate and acknowledge the work these people did, at least in Iowa and Missouri. I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for his leadership on this issue. I thank Senator Talent for his comments earlier. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I will be back when we have the amendment fully ready.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Roberto Alvarez from my office during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the pending amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for also agreeing to modify his amendment with a provision of mine that would shorten the period of time that Congress has to review an administrative determination to add a class of nuclear weapons workers to a ``Special Exposure Cohort'' entitling them to automatic compensation from 180 days to 60 days. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Kentucky to accept that and to shorten that period of time to 60 days which will speed the process of compensating workers. Senator Bunning has worked very hard on this amendment. It takes some very important steps toward addressing very serious defects in an existing compensation program, and I hope that my colleagues will support the amendment today and hopefully we will not even need to have a rollcall vote. In my State of Iowa, between the years of 1947 and 1975, almost 4,000 people were employed assembling, disassembling nuclear weapons. So great was the secrecy surrounding the facility, which was located inside an existing ammunition facility, that I did not even learn of its existence until late in 1997. I might add that when I was informed by certain workers that they had been exposed to dangerous radiation, I then submitted this to the Department of Army. The Department of Army denied that they had ever worked on nuclear weapons at this facility. Well, I thought that was the end of it. I thought surely the workers must have been mistaken. Then I found out that it was the Army that was mistaken and, in fact, thousands of workers had worked at this plant in Iowa. Five and a half years later we are still trying to learn the full extent of the weapons activity and the radioactive materials to which Iowa workers were exposed. During this same period, as the realization sank in that the cold war really was over, it became clear that nuclear weapons workers all over the country had been exposed to extremely dangerous radioactive materials without their knowledge and without adequate protection. As a result, many of the workers developed cancer and related occupational illnesses. That is why in 2000, Congress acted to create a compensation system for former atomic weapons workers. The compensation system that we created had two distinct parts. The part addressed by the Bunning amendment today applies to workers who show that they have an illness that was more likely than not caused by the work they performed in these nuclear weapons facilities, and that they have been disabled by that illness. Since the creation of the compensation program, this part has been administered--or I should say, quite frankly, has been NOT administered--by the Department of Energy. There are 23,000 workers who have filed claims with the Department of Energy. As of April of this year, exactly one person has received compensation. When confronted with this appalling record, the Department of Energy continued to assert that it was making improvements and would have all the claims through the first stage of the process in no less than 5 more years! Of course, even if the Department had done a better job of processing the claims, not one single worker in Iowa would ever have been able to get paid. That is because the program was totally dependent on the existence of a current Department of Energy contractor who would be available to pay the claims. This is a catch-22 situation for Iowa workers because Iowa has not had a DOE contractor since 1975. So as the program stands today, there is no way that any former Iowa atomic workers will be able to get compensation for their illness. So I welcome the Bunning amendment, which transfers this program known as Title D from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor and permits the Department of Labor to pay the claimants directly. This will mean that Iowa workers can actually receive compensation and medical benefits under this program. The Bunning amendment simply carries through on our original commitment in the 2000 bill that Congress believes that former nuclear weapons workers made ill by their employment are entitled to compensation. I do believe this amendment should be a little bit better, and I will talk about an amendment that Senator Bond and I will be offering at some other point later on. First, the amendment continues to require that the amount of compensation under this program be determined based on the State compensation formulas. That means if a worker in Iowa and a worker in Kentucky or New Mexico had the exact same illness, they could nonetheless be receiving very different compensation awards. That makes no sense and creates a ridiculous burden on the Department of Labor in attempting to get these claims processed and paid. In addition, the level of compensation paid under this program is in my opinion inadequate. The amount that a former worker can receive is calculated based on his or her wage at the time of the disability. In Iowa, this means that the absolute best case scenario is that a worker would receive eighty percent of a 1975 wage, a wage from almost 30 years ago, with no adjustment for interest or inflation. Under the absolute best case scenario, where a worker is determined to be 100-percent disabled by an injury, that worker would receive about $105 a week, or about $5,000 a year. That is the best case scenario. Most will receive much less. I think every atomic worker in America who can show they have been injured ought to receive the same pay, whether they worked in Kentucky, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, or Missouri. Basing this on workers' comp wages in each State, again, skews it that way. I believe the amount they are being paid is too low. To base it on a wage of 30 years ago is totally inadequate. But nonetheless, I believe this amendment is a major step forward for workers in Iowa and across the country. I just wish we could find a more simple and uniform and more generous method for awarding this compensation. In addition, this amendment essentially leaves untouched the other half of the energy workers compensation program. Basically, we are talking about two titles: Title D, which the Bunning amendment addresses, and then there is Title B. That provides a flat sum of $150,000 and medical benefits to workers with cancer and beryllium disease. There are two ways for a worker to qualify for this compensation under Title B. The first is to qualify for automatic compensation as a member of a special exposure cohort. When we originally passed the bill, workers from Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Alaska were designated for this automatic compensation. My question is, Why not all the other atomic workers around the country? Why were they left out? Why should they not be included in part B? Why should those who worked in Iowa who were exposed not be included? So that is the special exposure cohort. The second way to qualify for the title B, the cancer and beryllium title, and the only method available to the workers in Iowa at the Iowa Army ammunition plant and at facilities in Missouri and at other facilities across the country, is to go through a process where a worker's dose of radiation is reconstructed based on all the documents and information gathered from the site. At the time the bill passed Congress in 2000, Congress recognized there would be situations where it was simply not feasible to reconstruct workers' doses because relevant records of dose are lacking or do not exist, or because it might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of workers that they will all be dead before we have an answer to who is eligible. That, unfortunately, is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves in Iowa. The Iowa Army ammunition plant facility was in operation, as I said, from 1947 to 1975. The people who worked there who are still alive are elderly, and they are ill. Many have died since we first passed the bill. Bob Anderson, the gentleman who first wrote to me about the fact that they made nuclear weapons in Iowa at this facility, will undergo surgery for thyroid cancer this week. That is in addition to the lymphoma from which he already suffers. Yet almost 4 years into this program, only 38 Iowans have received compensation, and that 38 does not include a single person who suffers from cancer--not one. These people cannot afford to wait any longer. That is why I will be offering an amendment with Senator Bond to allow workers from our facility to receive automatic compensation as part of a special exposure cohort, the same as the workers in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Alaska. Why should Iowa workers be added to the category entitled to this automatic compensation? Because what we have learned since 2000 is that Iowa has the single worst record of any facility in the country involved in nuclear weapons production. After 3 years of hard work by researchers at the University of Iowa and by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, they have concluded there are no records anywhere that document the level of internal radiation exposure to which workers in Iowa were exposed--none, no records. With regard to external doses, which are measured by having workers wear badges, between 1948 and 1958 not one single worker in Iowa wore a dose badge--not one. So how can you reconstruct it when, for 10 years, they didn't even wear a dose badge? And, when they did begin wearing badges, it was minimal. Between 1959 and 1965, somewhere between 8 and 35 workers a year wore badges out of a workforce of 800 to 1,000 at that facility. This is despite the fact that just this week, at a meeting of former workers, they told my staff that based upon the way the plant was set up, at least 156 workers a year were exposed to the highest levels at the plant. Listening to these workers, some of whom worked side by side while one wore a badge and the other didn't, gives a sense of just how totally lacking the facility was in terms of monitoring the radiation that these workers received. Up until 1968, the highest percent of the DOE employees who were monitored was 7 percent, and I am told that these were badges that workers wore on their collars while they were working with nuclear material at waist level. Just in the last couple of months, NIOSH, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, has completed a ``site profile'' of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant that acknowledges these grossly inadequate records. But what is their approach now? They believe they can reconstruct this dose that Iowa workers got by looking at an entirely different facility in Texas during an entirely different time period. This is not fair and it is not right. It is time to admit that Iowa is a site where it simply is not possible to perform dose reconstruction. The Government simply doesn't know what went on at the facility and to what the workers were exposed. That makes it impossible to perform timely dose reconstruction based on science. For example, in a site profile, NIOSH assumed that the entire work of the facility consisted of assembly work where the workers were protected from the most virulent types of radiation because the neutrons were already shielded with a hard coating when they arrived at the plant. But in a meeting with former workers, they spoke of how weapons were regularly disassembled. The protective outer coat was removed, exposing them to high doses of neutron radiation. I know the chairman is anxious to get on, but this is extremely important to hundreds of people in the State of Iowa who are sick today with cancer, who are sick today with other diseases, who worked in these plants, who never were told to what they were exposed. We have been fighting, I say to my friend from Virginia, we have been fighting for years to get these poor people covered and they are dying every day and they are not being compensated.

Mr. HARKIN. I know. I am supporting the amendment. What I am trying to say here on the Senate floor is that even with this amendment there are certain people in Iowa who, because of the way it is structured, will not be adequately compensated. What I am saying to my friend from Virginia and others on the Senate floor is there is a special program that exists in about four different States where if workers have cancer or beryllium illness, they are automatically compensated. In Iowa, because we have no records of dosages and these people have cancer from beryllium, they should have also been put into that special program. Why should atomic workers from one State be put into that and atomic workers from another State exposed to the same kind of radiation not be? That is the case I am making here. I support the amendment. It takes us a long way. It gets us out of the Department of Energy into the Department of Labor. But it does not address the part of the compensation program that provides for people with cancer. I am saying NIOSH cannot do it, cannot reconstruct the radiation doses of people suffering from devastating cancers. These people in Iowa I believe are being discriminated against. They cannot reconstruct valid doses. This is exactly the type of situation Congress foresaw when we passed this legislation in 2000. Former weapons complex workers in Iowa are old, they are sick, and they are dying. I mentioned one who just had a lymphoma operation, and he is now undergoing a thyroid operation this week. He was exposed year after year to deadly radiation. I will close by saying that at a meeting of workers in Burlington, IA, earlier this week we heard from a number of workers--one who worked with weapons for 3 years in the 1960s. Two of her children were born with very serious birth defects which the doctors themselves attributed to radiation exposure. She herself has now developed cancer. We heard from workers who talked about the hair on their legs and arms standing on end when they were near the weapons even though the weapons were cool to the touch. We heard from children whose parents had died when they were young because of lung cancer, kidney cancer, and other cancers, and who worked for years in this facility. What these people are seeking is not just about money; it is about an acknowledgment that they were put in harm's way without their knowledge. They are seeking an acknowledgment that they made a sacrifice on behalf of the good of this country and for the protection of this country. To require these workers to continue to wait for that justice is not fair and it is not right. I thank Senator Bunning and Senator Bingaman for their hard work on this amendment. This amendment, as I say, fixes one-half of the compensation system. This is a major step forward. I also say to my colleagues that we are not doing justice for all these workers. Senator Bond and I will be offering an additional amendment as we proceed on this bill. There is no reason we should not add the workers from these two facilities to the special exposure cohort. When we originally passed this bill, we created a fund with mandatory spending in the Department of Labor. The Congressional Budget Office analysis devotes almost $700 million for payment of compensation to workers included in the special exposure cohorts--the cancer cohorts. Today, even though the vast majority of claims by workers in those four States who are eligible for this cohort have been paid, just over $400 million has been spent. But the Congressional Budget Office devoted $700 million. The money is there. The money has already been accounted for. We just ask that these workers be acknowledged for the sacrifices they made for their country and that they be included in the special cohorts. I again thank the Senator from Kentucky. I yield the floor. Modification to Amendment No. 3438

Mr. HARKIN. Shortly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the Department of Defense authorization bill, Senators Warner and Levin, for their assistance earlier this week in adopting an important amendment. I offered the amendment, now a provision of this bill, to express the sense of the Senate concerning programming on American Forces Radio and Television Service, AFRTS. As my colleagues know, for American service members and their families stationed in more than 177 countries and U.S. territories around the world, as well as for DOD civilians and their families, AFRTS is intended to broadcast a ``touch of home'' by providing programming that reflects a cross section of what is widely available to stateside audiences. According to the AFRTS website, its programming is meant to ``represent what is seen and heard in the United States.'' I support AFRTS in its mission. Making U.S. entertainment and news programming available to American service members wherever they are located is important for their morale and to keep them informed. I believe the fiscal year 2004 funding level of $47 million for AFRTS is justified. Several weeks ago, however, it came to my attention that the programming on one AFRTS service--its ``uninterrupted voice,'' or talk radio, service--has what I consider to be a political bias in its social and political commentary. For the information of my colleagues, the radio broadcast component of AFRTS, which is American Forces Radio, consists of 13 channels, or ``services.'' Seven of these radio services focus on music, with news briefs at the top of every hour. Two are continuous news information services. One service broadcasts National Public Radio 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Two services are continuous sports talk. The final service is what the network calls uninterrupted voice service, or talk radio service. Based on conversations between my staff and personnel at AFRTS, I believe the bias that exists in the social and political commentary portions of this talk radio service is not intentional. I commend the openness of American Forces Radio officials in the dialogue we have now begun on this topic. But in my view the bias in this programming is real. Public criticism of American Forces Radio content has focused on the fact that Rush Limbaugh's commentary is carried daily on the talk radio service. I generally do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's commentaries. But I do not object to the fact that they are run on a daily basis on this service. Some people do object. However, what I do take issue with is the fact that there is no commentary on the service that would even begin to balance the extreme right-wing views that Rush Limbaugh routinely expresses on his program. Critics have specifically cited Rush Limbaugh's use of his show to condone and trivialize the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. As many of my colleagues know, and as has been pointed out previously here on the Senate floor, Mr. Limbaugh reportedly likened the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity initiation. He called some of the abusive tactics a ``brilliant maneuver.'' I think the critics are right. Limbaugh's remarks--and there are many more offensive remarks by Mr. Limbaugh on this topic than I have mentioned here--are repugnant. They do damage to the American image when they are heard around the world. I would guess that Limbaugh's comments on Abu Ghraib also probably offend a large majority of American service members. Still, I am not calling for American Forces Radio to pull Rush Limbaugh's commentaries from their talk radio service. I am asking, and I am pleased that the Senate is now on record asking, that AFRTS meet its own mandate, as generally articulated in Department of Defense Regulation 5120.20R. That regulation calls for AFRTS political programming that is ``characterized by its fairness and balance,'' as well as news programming guided by a ``principle of fairness'' that requires ``reasonable opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important controversial public issues.'' Liberals, moderates and independents contribute to funding for American Forces Radio through payment of their taxes, just like conservatives do. There is no reason that American service members should receive lengthy right-wing commentaries with regularity on American Forces Radio's talk service, without some balance from competing views as part of that same service. For the good of its listeners, and to meet its own mandate, American Forces Radio needs to make a greater effort to give a balanced, fair representation of varying political viewpoints on its talk radio service. In conversations with my staff, individuals at AFRTS have said that their programming of Rush Limbaugh on the talk service is driven strictly by national ratings here in the States. That was not the position taken by a DOD official on CNN earlier this month, however. According to news coverage posted on CNN.com, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber has said that the appropriateness of content is a factor in deciding what commentaries are broadcast on American Forces Radio. I agree with the Deputy Assistant Secretary's statement. Content is a factor in deciding which commentaries to run on American Forces Radio. At the same time, I also agree with stated AFRTS policy. There should be fairness and balance in political programming on American Forces Radio. My amendment in no way prescribes specific content or programming at AFRTS. That is not the role of the Senate. What my amendment does do, appropriately, is state that it is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should ensure that AFRTS policies of fairness and balance are being fully implemented. The amendment calls on the Secretary to develop appropriate methods of oversight in this regard. I look forward to working with the Department and others to see that AFRTS meets these proper goals.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with a sense of sorrow that I rise today to speak about the practice of abusive and exploitative child labor, as well as to recognize World Day against Child Labor, which occurred on June 12. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay. The International Labor Organization has set aside this day to give a voice to these helpless children who toil away in hazardous conditions. We should not only think about these children on June 12. We should think about this last vestige of slavery every day. I have remained steadfast in my commitment to eliminate abusive and exploitative child labor. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the U.S. Since I introduced that bill, we have made some progress in raising awareness about this scourge. In June of 1999, ILO Convention 182, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, was adopted unanimously in the ILO and here in the U.S. Senate. This was the first time ever that an ILO convention was approved without one dissenting vote. In record time the Senate ratified ILO Convention 2 with a bipartisan, 96-0 vote. For the first time in history the world spoke with one voice in opposition to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from across the political, economic, and religious spectrum--from Jewish to Muslim, from Buddhists to Christians--came together to proclaim unequivocally that abusive and exploitative child labor is a practice which will not be tolerated and must be abolished. Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is an acceptable practice because of a country's economic circumstances. Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is acceptable because of cultural tradition. And gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is a necessary evil on the road to economic development. When this convention was approved, the United States and the international community as a whole laid those arguments to rest and laid the groundwork to begin the process of ending the scourge of abusive and exploitative child labor. As of today, 50 countries have ratified ILO Convention 182. In fact, since the ILO was established in 1919, never has one of it treaties been ratified so quickly by so many national governments. In May of 2000, the Senate enacted the Trade and Development Act of 2000. This act included a provision I authored that requires more than 100 nations that enjoy duty-free access to the American marketplace to implement their legal commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in order to keep these trade privileges. In 2001, Congressman Engel and I, along with the chocolate industry, negotiated the Harkin-Engel Protocol. This plan addresses abusive and exploitative child labor within the cocoa and chocolate producing countries of West Africa. This agreement will for the first time make possible the ability to publicly certify that cocoa used in chocolate or related products has been grown and processed without abusive child labor. This historic agreement represents a true partnership between industry and government to stamp out abusive and exploitative child labor. In an effort to continue to raise awareness, last month the first Children's World Congress about Child Labor was held in Florence, Italy. The Congress was organized by the Global March and my good friend Kailash Satayarthi. At this conference child delegates from all across the world joined with the common purpose of discussing and raising awareness about the atrocities of abusive child labor. I would like to commend Kendra Halter, one of my constituents, from Iowa City, who was selected to participate as a U.S. delegate to the Congress. The child delegates participated in workshops and were allowed to question foreign leaders and government officials from various countries to include the United States. The Congress produced a declaration that stressed the need for governments to take direct action combating this issue by providing free quality education. The declaration also calls for parents and youth of all countries to get involved in the spreading of awareness of this scourge. In spite of all of these successes there is much more to be done. Currently, according to the ILO, there are 246 million child laborers in the world. 73 million of those are under the age of 10, and approximately 22 thousand children die in work related accidents every year. Abusive and exploitative child labor is prevalent in many parts of the world, including in our backyard. In the June 10 edition of the Washington Post, the issue of abusive child labor once again made the headlines. The article brings to light the troubled life of a child aged 14 and his family as they labor dangerously in the sugar cane fields of El Salvador. The young boy has been working in the fields for more than half of his life. His four brothers and sisters are also forced to work with him, his youngest brother is nine. Their tiny bodies are gashed by machetes and burned by hazardous fertilizers. These children and hundreds more are denied an education and in turn will be destined to a life of poverty. This is not what should be happening in the 21st century. In fact, the Bush administration has recently finished negotiating a subregional free trade agreement with the Central American countries. El Salvador is one of six countries participating in the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA. In my view, we should not be negotiating free trade agreements with countries that do not enforce their own labor laws and international standards. Not only is it my view but it is U.S. law. Abusive and exploitative child labor should be a thing of the past. The United States should not continue to turn a blind eye to this scourge. It is time that we enforce our laws and international standards and ensure that countries are raising their standards on this issue. If we did our part to ensure that children were learning and not laboring, there would not be a need to have a day dedicated to end child labor. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record declaration to which I referred.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what we see happening in America today, after 3\1/2\ years of this administration, is what I call the middle- class squeeze, a squeeze which has been tightened incredibly by the policies of the Bush administration. The truth really is, it is not so much they are being squeezed, the middle class is actually being hammered. Think about it. Since Mr. Bush took office in January of 2001, nearly 2 million private sector jobs have been lost, putting downward pressure on wages and salaries. There has been some job growth over the last couple of months, but just since the passage of the 2003 tax bill, 11 months ago, our economy created 1.2 million fewer jobs than the President's own Council of Economic Advisers predicted would be created without the tax bill. We have 2 million fewer jobs than what they predicted if they passed the tax bill. Now, again, there have been a few jobs in the last couple months. Of course, when the glass is dry, a drop of water seems like an ocean. That is what we have had. We have had a couple drops of water. We have had a couple months of job growth, but you don't judge an administration by 2 months, you judge it by 4 years, and over 4 years we have lost almost 2 million jobs. That is not even the half of it. Family income has fallen 2 percent. Housing prices have increased 18 percent. Health insurance premiums are up 50 percent. Utility bills are up more than 15 percent. Credit card fees have doubled. And, in large measure, because of the Bush tax cuts and their negative impact on our State budgets, college tuition, under the Bush administration, is up a whopping 35 percent. Do you know who pays college tuition? The middle class. Meanwhile, as the middle class gets squeezed, Mr. Bush's base has never had it so good. I refer my colleagues to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal titled ``U.S. Led a Resurgence Last Year Among Millionaires World-Wide.'' This article, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, reports that the number of North Americans with over $1 million in financial or liquid assets increased by 13.5 percent last year, and their assets increased by 13.6 percent. At the same time, the wealth of the ultra- high net worth individuals--those with over $30 million in assets--grew to a total of $2.5 trillion. In the last 3 years, corporate profits are up over fourfold--62 percent over the past 3 years--but private wages are actually down. When we look at all compensation, private wages are less than one-third of normal growth. It says in this journal article that the number of millionaires in the U.S. is up, as I said, 14 percent--actually 13.6 percent--and that ``the U.S. and Canada together added more new millionaires last year than Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East combined.'' Well, so much for the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy. That is exactly who they are helping. Clearly, the President's policies--tax cuts for the rich, lower taxes on investment income--are working for those at the top, but it is not working for those on Main Street. This administration is ignoring Main Street. It might be listening to Wall Street, but it is ignoring Main Street. Quite frankly, what Main Street is telling us, loudly and clearly, is that their No. 1 concern is economic security. In the State of Iowa and across America, despite all the happy talk about the economy, people fear losing their jobs, their retirement, their health care. They are also worried about losing their right to time-and-a-half overtime. With the Labor Department's new overtime rule, people will be obligated to work 45, 50, 55, 60 hours a week with zero additional compensation. That is what is happening to the middle class. Basically, it is hitting women more than anyone else. This is one group disproportionately harmed by the proposed new overtime rules. Why? Because the fact is, women tend to dominate in retail services and sales positions that would be particularly affected by this new overtime rule. Married women increased their working hours by nearly 40 percent in the last 30 years. Consequently, their contribution to family income has also risen. So you have the squeeze on the middle class, which is now seeing the administration taking away their right to time-and-a- half overtime. I have not even mentioned the discrimination against women in the workplace in terms of wages. Millions of women are working in female- dominated jobs, as social workers, teachers, childcare workers, and nurses, with equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions as similar jobs dominated by men, but these women are not paid the same as their counterparts in the male sector. This is wrong and it must end. That is why I introduced the Fair Pay Act in April 2003 to make sure women who are in these jobs are treated fairly and equitably. In summary, this President, George W. Bush, has presided over the largest job loss of any President since the Great Depression. Yet he remains wedded to policies that are making the problem worse for the middle class. His administration has praised the outsourcing of jobs as something good for our economy. This administration opposes any increase in the minimum wage. They oppose extending unemployment benefits. They are trying to take away the overtime rights of millions of American workers. This administration has done nothing to help equalize pay for women in the workplace. It all adds up to one thing: The middle class in America is getting hammered. It is time for a change. It is time to change our economic course. It is time to quit squeezing and hammering the American middle class. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, Sioux City, IA, lost one of its most passionate and beloved community leaders, Betty Strong. Betty was an adopted daughter of Iowa--she was born and raised in Missouri--but she became a true Iowan, through and through. She moved to Sioux City in 1953, and for the next half century she worked tirelessly for her community and as an activist in the Democratic Party. She was one of those people who always strove to make a positive difference in the lives of those around her, and Betty succeeded magnificently. Betty's understanding and passion for politics made her an invaluable participant in countless State, local, and national campaigns. She was a delegate for Vice President Walter Mondale at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, and participated in Senator Joseph Biden's 1988 Presidential campaign in Iowa. In 2000, she coordinated Iowans for Gore. I met Betty more than 20 years ago and she quickly became a very dear friend and trusted political counselor. She was my chief supporter and organizer in Sioux City during my first campaign for the Senate. In 1976, Betty became the first woman to be elected chairperson of the Woodbury County Democratic Party, and she also served on a variety of other local Democratic and women's organizations. Betty's tireless organizing and campaigning in the late 1980s helped to win the vote to build four new high schools and a juvenile detention center in Sioux City. From 1989 until her death, Betty served as the president of the Missouri River Historical Development Inc., a nonprofit group that built the $4 million Sioux City Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center. Betty was very proud of that center, which, she said, ``brings history alive for people of all ages.'' The list of Betty's accomplishments runs long, and is a testament to all she has done to better the lives of the people around her. She was involved in politics for all the right reasons. She wasn't seeking fame. She simply wanted a government that worked for all people. Betty Strong embodied the qualities and spirit that people in my State cherish. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Betty's husband Darrell, their children Sharon, Jackie, and Marvin, and their spouses. Iowans are deeply indebted to Betty for her devotion to public service. We will miss her greatly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, our Nation has come together this week to mourn the passing of former President Ronald Reagan. However anticipated his death may have been, it is still a profound loss for the Reagan family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all and especially with former First Lady Nancy Reagan. However, knowing the kind of man Ronald Reagan was, knowing his relentless optimism and his sunny disposition, something tells me he would prefer that Americans spend this week remembering and celebrating his unique character and quality. ``America in mourning'' just does not seem Reaganesque because Ronald Reagan was always about ``morning in America.'' He always looked at the bright side of every situation or circumstance. I remember the story he told about the little boy who walked into a barn and encountered a huge pile of manure. The boy, who was not the least bit disappointed, broke into a big smile and said: I just know there is a pony in here somewhere. That was the Ronald Reagan we remember and admire. Iowans relate strongly to Ronald Reagan because his roots were our roots. He grew up next door in smalltown Illinois and spent 5 formative years in Iowa. In fact, this was where the young Ronald Reagan found his voice as the Great Communicator--first as a radio announcer at WOC Radio in Davenport and later at WHO Radio in Des Moines where he became one of the most popular sports broadcasters in the region. That was at the height of the Great Depression. He remembered this period with obvious fondness. In his autobiography, ``An American Life,'' he wrote: I spent four years at station WHO in Des Moines and they were among the most pleasant of my life. At 22, I'd achieved my dream; I was a sports announcer. If I had stopped there, I believe I would have been happy the rest of my life. During his two terms in the White House, I met President Reagan on many occasions, and just about every time he would eagerly tell me he had been an announcer at WHO Radio. He regaled me with stories of how, sitting in his studio in Des Moines, he faked the play by play of the Chicago Cubs baseball game based upon wire reports as they came through. He seemed to have this fixed in his mind, that when he would see me, it was Tom Harkin and WHO. If this is Harkin, I am going to tell him about my time at WHO. It sort of became a thing that every time we met, he, again, would tell me some story about his time at WHO Radio. So that was my experience with the Reagan charm. We disagreed on many important issues, but you could not come into contact with this man and not feel his personal warmth and charm. In fact, I have been struck this week by the bipartisan affection for this former President. He was the genuine article, a man who embodied so many of the traits we hold dear as Americans. We remember his conviction, his courage, his lack of pretentiousness, and, yes, his optimism. On a personal note, I will always be grateful to President Reagan for signing into law my bill to establish the National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders at the National Institutes of Health in 1988. Quite frankly, his advisers urged him to veto the bill, but the President, who himself suffered from hearing loss, vetoed his advisers. He signed the bill into law. As a result, we have had a series of medical breakthroughs that are helping millions of Americans cope with hearing loss and communication disorders. Lastly, he and Nancy fought a heroic battle with Alzheimer's disease, and they did a great deal to raise the level of awareness and understanding of this terrible disease. I am especially proud of the courageous leadership Nancy Reagan has displayed in our efforts to find a cure for this deadly disease by her advocating a more expanded stem cell research program in America. As I said, the most fitting way to pay tribute to President Reagan is not so much to mourn his death as to celebrate his life and to honor his service to our country. As he lies in state at the Capitol this week, a thankful American nation will say farewell to a truly unique American. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I regret that I was necessarily absent for the vote on the nomination of Dennis Saylor to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm Mr. Saylor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the National World War II Memorial will be dedicated here in Washington on the Saturday before Memorial Day. It is a stunningly beautiful monument, located midway between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument. It is a long-overdue salute, an expression of profound gratitude, to the millions of Americans who served their country with courage, sacrifice, and selflessness in that war. I would like to share with my Senate colleagues a remarkable story about how the small community of Walnut, IA, has expressed its gratitude to a local veteran of the Second World War, Erwin Arndt. Mr. Arndt returned from the war to serve his community as an electrician, a volunteer firefighter, a city council member, and commander of the local AMVETS unit. Just about everybody in Walnut knows and respects Mr. Arndt. And there was much concern when he suffered a series of strokes over the past year. All too typically, a man in Mr. Arndt's condition would have no choice but to become a dependent in a nursing home. But friends and neighbors in Walnut came to his rescue in a truly remarkable and inspiring way. They joined hands to give him the wherewithal and assistance he needed to continue living independently in his apartment. A local restaurant helped to provide daily meals. Several citizens helped Mr. Arndt to keep his apartment clean and orderly, and take him to medical appointments. Still others organized shifts to keep him company in his apartment. Several especially kind citizens got together to purchase a motorized chair to help Mr. Arndt get around. It was truly a community effort, an act of collective kindness that I find truly inspiring. Mr. Arndt's daughter, Karen DeWinter, is overwhelmed with gratitude for what the people of Walnut did for her father. She told me that she was especially touched that on her father's birthday, the local AMVET auxiliary held a party at a cafe, where they brought cards from local elementary and preschool children. I want to acknowledge the people of Walnut, IA, for their extraordinary caring and kindness toward Erwin Arndt. Like millions of Americans of what Tom Brokaw has labeled ``the Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Arndt served our Nation with dedication in both war and peace. In their own special way, the people of Walnut have said thank you to this veteran and beloved member of the community. I would like to add my own gratitude, not just to Mr. Arndt but also to the good citizens of Walnut.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bipartisan measure on which I have worked closely with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. The purpose of this bill is to expand the transportation infrastructure and improve the ecosystem of the upper Mississippi River. I have been deeply involved with Mississippi navigation issues because of their enormous importance to farmers in Iowa. Efficient river transportation is critical to keeping Iowa commodity costs competitive with foreign and domestic alternatives. When shipping on the river is constrained, costs rise. That, in turn, leads to price increases for moving bulk farm commodities by alternative means, mainly rail. These price differentials seem relatively small compared to the total price, but they make a huge difference in farm income. Clearly, river traffic on the Mississippi is incredibly important to producers in my State. As a result of traffic congestion on the Mississippi, producers in the upper Midwest face longer shipping times, higher costs, and lost revenue. In the short run, enhanced traffic management can improve the situation. And it is important to have helper boats to push long barges through crowded locks. This bill addresses these two matters. But we need a longer-term solution, too. It is incredibly important that we modernize a number of the locks on the upper Mississippi--and we need to get started as soon as possible. Existing law requires exhaustive analysis of river-use levels looking decades into the future. The studies required for such predictions are, by their very nature, highly speculative at best. There is no shortage of critics of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its methods. But we can all agree that, to remain competitive, America needs to keep the arteries and veins of America's river transportation system in smooth running order. Last year, I visited Brazil and saw first-hand their remarkable efforts to modernize and improve their river transportation system. We need to keep up with countries like Brazil, if we are going to remain competitive. We simply cannot wait any longer to authorize construction of 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move through the upper Mississippi and Illinois without being split. However, this is not an easy issue. Over the years, I have heard time and time again from constituents and national leaders who are concerned about the environment, as I am. People correctly insist that we maintain a balance between navigation, flood control, and environmental protection. Habitat for many species, and the Mississippi river ecosystem as a whole, has deteriorated since the construction of the original lock system in the 1930's. The Mississippi River is home to a wide variety of fish and birds, as well as other wildlife. All of this wildlife, and the abundant plant life, too, are important to the character and life of the Mississippi River. Approximately 40 percent of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds use the Mississippi Flyway. Parts of the Upper Mississippi River serve could well be the most important area for migrating diving ducks in the United States. The Mississippi River also serves as habitat for breeding and wintering birds, including the bald eagle. We are all aware of the problems that have plagued the Corps' past work on the Mississippi River. But the Corps has pledged to dramatically step up its emphasis on environmental protection. We need to work with the Corps to ensure that all updates and renovations of locks and dams are done with keen concern for the environment and for the fish and wildlife that depend on the Mississippi River habitat. At the same time, we need to give the Corps the authorization and funding it needs to accomplish real ecosystem restoration, and not just make up for the lost habitat of specific identified species. The legislation we are proposing accomplishes this. We understand that this bill is going to be a challenge in these difficult budget times. But to not act would be penny wise and pound foolish. We need to be thinking of the long-term economic health of our agricultural producers and shippers, hand in hand with the long-term health of the diverse ecosystems in the river. I believe the legislation we are proposing strikes a careful balance. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to achieve those goals.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bipartisan measure on which I have worked closely with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. The purpose of this bill is to expand the transportation infrastructure and improve the ecosystem of the upper Mississippi River. I have been deeply involved with Mississippi navigation issues because of their enormous importance to farmers in Iowa. Efficient river transportation is critical to keeping Iowa commodity costs competitive with foreign and domestic alternatives. When shipping on the river is constrained, costs rise. That, in turn, leads to price increases for moving bulk farm commodities by alternative means, mainly rail. These price differentials seem relatively small compared to the total price, but they make a huge difference in farm income. Clearly, river traffic on the Mississippi is incredibly important to producers in my State. As a result of traffic congestion on the Mississippi, producers in the upper Midwest face longer shipping times, higher costs, and lost revenue. In the short run, enhanced traffic management can improve the situation. And it is important to have helper boats to push long barges through crowded locks. This bill addresses these two matters. But we need a longer-term solution, too. It is incredibly important that we modernize a number of the locks on the upper Mississippi--and we need to get started as soon as possible. Existing law requires exhaustive analysis of river-use levels looking decades into the future. The studies required for such predictions are, by their very nature, highly speculative at best. There is no shortage of critics of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its methods. But we can all agree that, to remain competitive, America needs to keep the arteries and veins of America's river transportation system in smooth running order. Last year, I visited Brazil and saw first-hand their remarkable efforts to modernize and improve their river transportation system. We need to keep up with countries like Brazil, if we are going to remain competitive. We simply cannot wait any longer to authorize construction of 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move through the upper Mississippi and Illinois without being split. However, this is not an easy issue. Over the years, I have heard time and time again from constituents and national leaders who are concerned about the environment, as I am. People correctly insist that we maintain a balance between navigation, flood control, and environmental protection. Habitat for many species, and the Mississippi river ecosystem as a whole, has deteriorated since the construction of the original lock system in the 1930's. The Mississippi River is home to a wide variety of fish and birds, as well as other wildlife. All of this wildlife, and the abundant plant life, too, are important to the character and life of the Mississippi River. Approximately 40 percent of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds use the Mississippi Flyway. Parts of the Upper Mississippi River serve could well be the most important area for migrating diving ducks in the United States. The Mississippi River also serves as habitat for breeding and wintering birds, including the bald eagle. We are all aware of the problems that have plagued the Corps' past work on the Mississippi River. But the Corps has pledged to dramatically step up its emphasis on environmental protection. We need to work with the Corps to ensure that all updates and renovations of locks and dams are done with keen concern for the environment and for the fish and wildlife that depend on the Mississippi River habitat. At the same time, we need to give the Corps the authorization and funding it needs to accomplish real ecosystem restoration, and not just make up for the lost habitat of specific identified species. The legislation we are proposing accomplishes this. We understand that this bill is going to be a challenge in these difficult budget times. But to not act would be penny wise and pound foolish. We need to be thinking of the long-term economic health of our agricultural producers and shippers, hand in hand with the long-term health of the diverse ecosystems in the river. I believe the legislation we are proposing strikes a careful balance. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to achieve those goals.