Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, last Thursday the New York Times of May 29 had a front-page picture, a big, color picture on the front page, of the President signing the tax cut bill in the East Room of the White House. As I looked at this picture, I thought: This really is appropriate. Pictures say a thousand words. Here is a picture of the President signing the tax bill, and he is in the East Room, with all the big crystal chandeliers, all the trappings of power, and an audience. I was looking at this audience. I thought: Who are these people? I am looking at them all. Do you know what? This looks like the rich and the powerful of America sitting there with all these chandeliers and getting all these big tax cuts. There is not one person of color sitting in that audience, not one. Now, there may be. I cannot see back behind where the picture was taken. Maybe there was one. Maybe one of the ushers back there was an African American. But it just kind of leaps out at you that these are the people who really benefit from that tax cut. Why didn't the President take that tax cut signing down to middle America someplace? Why didn't he take it down to a small community of middle-income taxpayers? Why didn't he take it to a low-income area, say--well, I don't care, pick a city: Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, IA, Houston, TX; maybe Detroit, MI or Flint, MI--and go to an area of that city that is low-income where people go to work every day, where they are struggling to make ends meet, where they have to find some child care for their kids so they can go to work to put bread on the table to maybe have a little bit of a decent lifestyle, and they are having trouble finding decent child care and other costs of raising children? Why didn't the President go down there and sign that tax cut bill? Well, because the sentence right under the picture says why he did not do that: Tax law omits $400 child credit for millions. Look at the picture: All the trappings of power, all the rich and powerful of America sitting in that audience. Right below it: ``Tax law omits $400 child credit for millions.'' One picture says a thousand words. And right underneath, it tells you why the President signed the bill in front of all these people and not out in middle America. So now we are just beginning to find out. We are just beginning to find out, as the New York Times said, that: Because of the formula for calculating the child care tax credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not benefit. Zero, nada, nothing. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group, says those families include 11.9 million children or one of every six children under 17. Madam President, 11.9 million children left out of the tax bill. You don't see them sitting in the audience. You don't see single moms, for example, sitting in this audience when they are signing the tax bill, balancing a couple kids on their knees. You don't see that. ``I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill,'' said Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who persuaded the full Senate to send the credit to many more low income families before the provision was dropped in conference. ``These are the people who need it the most and who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the blue jeans and the detergent . . .'' As I said, the New York Times picture and the story underneath it say it all. The Des Moines Register, closer to my home, had an editorial from May 31: ``A Tax-Cutting Disgrace.'' This is from the Des Moines Register editorial: Congress looked out for investors in the last-minute revision of the tax bill President Bush just signed into law. As a result, millions of low-income families won't get the extra $400-a-kid check from Uncle Sam this summer. But most families earning $10,500 to $26,625 annually will be left out. Giving them the credit would have cost about $3.5 billion and would have required sending checks to some who don't pay enough income taxes to deliver the credit as a refund. People of low income work hard. They go to work every day. They may make just above the minimum wage, but they are not paying income taxes. But they have child care needs, and they are left out. House Republicans contend that a $350 billion cap on the tax cut package didn't leave enough room to give the child credit to low-income families. To quote the Des Moines Register: ``Nonsense.'' They easily could have done less for the richest Americans and more for Americans who barely scrape by. And it's unconscionable that they didn't. Well, just look at that picture in the New York Times, look who is there. Then read the articles in the paper, read the Des Moines Register editorial, and you will find out what this tax bill was all about. Now we find something else out about this tax bill as we open up the newspaper this morning, the Washington Post from today: ``Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise.'' Well, well, well. ``Studies say the burden of the rich to decline.'' Here is what the Washington Post said this morning: Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle income taxpayers paying a greater share of all Federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policy. As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very wealthiest Americans, those earning $337,000 a year or more per year, will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes in the nation's tax laws. So what will happen? They go on to point out, the middle class will pay more and more. As the rich pay less and less, the middle class will pay more and more of their share of taxes. Thus, ``Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise.'' That brings us to what is going on right now with Medicare. Again, one may wonder what the connection is between the tax cut bill and the problems that we are confronting ahead in Social Security and Medicare. Don't take my word for it. Just read the Financial Times, not a Democratic newspaper or anything like that. The Financial Times of Friday May 30, front-page story: ``Bush Aware of `Crushing' Deficit Threat.'' This is the article. I have it blown up here in the chart, ``Bush Aware Of `Crushing' Deficit Threat.'' Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson told a press briefing. Listen to this quote: ``There is no question that Social Security and Medicare are going to present [future] generations with a crushing debt burden unless policymakers work seriously to reform those programs.'' Now it becomes clear. Huge tax breaks and cuts for the wealthy. The middle class tax share is to rise. Low-income families who have child care credit needs are written out. Because of the huge gap that is going to happen in the next 10 years because of the lack of revenues for the Federal Government, we are going to have problems in Social Security and Medicare. And so what does Mr. Fleischer say? We are not going to rescind the tax cuts. We are not going to ask the wealthiest to pay a greater burden. No, we are going to reform Social Security and Medicare. What does he mean by ``reform''? That is just a fancy, two-syllable word for a one-syllable word, ``cuts.'' Reform to Mr. Fleischer, the Bush White House, and the Republicans means cuts--cut Social Security, cut Medicare. Again, don't take my word for it. On May 21, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, said: I believe the standard benefit, the traditional Medicare program, has to be phased out. Senator Robert Bennett, on March 19, the Senator from Utah said: Medicare is a disaster. . . . We have to understand that Medicare is going to have to be overhauled. . . . Let's create a whole new system. And then to kind of wrap it all up, yesterday at a hearing here on the Hill, before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, who did they have as a lead-off witness? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, in 1995, said Medicare should wither on the vine. Well, it looks as if the withering is taking place, the huge tax cuts, quotes by my fellow Senators from the other side of the aisle. They want to get rid of Medicare. They want to phase it out. They want to take all the elderly and put them in private HMOs. There isn't one Medicare HMO in the entire State of Iowa. So it is an anti-rural, anti- small-State approach, but you see the pattern. Wither on the vine, huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, no child credit to help those with low income, and as the Post pointed out this morning, a greater share of the taxes to the Government are going to be borne by the middle class. What are more middle-class programs than Medicare and Social Security? Those are the middle-class programs. Those are the programs we have had for years to make sure that people who work hard and play by the rules, who raise their families, when they reach retirement age can retire with dignity and decent health care coverage. Now we see the game plan of the Republicans and of this President: Cut Social Security. Cut Medicare. That is what their reform means. Now they are going to use the argument that we will not have enough money to pay for the Medicare benefits, to pay for a decent prescription drug benefit, and to keep Social Security benefits going. We don't have enough money. Why? It all went to the wealthy. As I pointed out on the Senate floor during the tax cut debate, the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years would be more than made up by the shortfall in revenue of the tax cut bills, if they are extended as the President desires. So you have to ask yourself, what is more important to the middle class in America? Is it making sure that Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world, gets a $310 million tax break, which he himself said was wrong and that he should not be getting? He said the tax cut ought to go to the middle class, and I commend him for his honesty and forthrightness. What is more important? Is it giving him a $310 million tax break or is it more important to the middle class, to make sure we have a decent prescription drug benefit, to make sure we have a decent Medicare Program and a sound Social Security program? That is what is important to the middle class. That is what has been taken away by the tax cut bill. That is what the Republicans are trying to take away with cuts to Medicare, and that is what they are going to try to continue to take away with further cuts to Social Security. That is why we have to be out here to fight every day for the middle class in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Was that not the history? And if one has these private plans, that they are going to pick and choose, and they are going to cherry pick, and they are going to have a segregation of elderly pushed off in some corner someplace, begging for some kind of health care if we do not have a universal Medicare system? Is that not what might happen?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from New Hampshire, what we are doing is not taking money from the general fund. What we are doing is taking the money from the ethanol part of that which went to the general fund and putting it where it should have been in the first place; and that is, the highway trust fund. That is all we are doing. We are not taking money out of the general fund that comes from general income taxes and every other kind of excise taxes that are paid in this country. We are only talking about ethanol. It will add about $2 billion to the highway trust fund annually. The other point the Senator from New Hampshire made, which I wish to respond to, is on the issue of whether or not this is a great burden on the States. In California, nearly all of the refiners have voluntarily switched from MTBE to ethanol in advance of the State's MTBE phaseout deadline of January 1 of next year. Today, approximately 65 percent of all California gasoline is blended with ethanol. It is estimated that 80 percent of fuel in California will contain ethanol by this summer. I am told that last month the California Energy Commission stated that the transition to ethanol, which began in January of 2003, is ``progressing without any major problems.'' There have been no ethanol shortages, transportation delays, or logistical problems associated with the increased use of ethanol in California. Thus, any efforts to carve out California, per the Feinstein amendment or amendments, from the renewable fuels standard, are unjustified and unnecessary. Most ethanol sold in California is under a fixed price contract at about 63 cents per gallon, after the tax incentives are applied. Wholesale gasoline in California--that is what ethanol is blended with--is selling for $1.04 a gallon on average. So ethanol is cheaper per gallon in California than is regular gasoline. So how can this be a burden at all on California? This renewable fuels standard, as has been said by so many before me, will increase the use of ethanol and other renewable fuels--including biodiesel; not just ethanol, but biodiesel--in the Nation's fuel supply from 2.6 billion gallons in 2005 to 5 billion gallons in 2012. This amendment is very similar to the language we overwhelmingly passed out of this body in the last Congress as part of a comprehensive Energy bill package. It represents the culmination of a historic fuels agreement negotiated by the agriculture, renewable fuels, petroleum, and environmental communities over the past several years. Unfortunately, the agreement--the amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year--did not become law in 2002 due to the demise of the Energy bill in conference negotiations. This year, we must pass the renewable fuels standard and have it signed into law by the President, who has indicated his support for this. The renewable fuels standard is truly an energy security measure. The former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, believes the renewable fuels standard is an essential component in the advancement of America's energy security. His sentiments have been echoed as well by ADM Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert McFarlane, former National Security Adviser under President Reagan. The renewable fuels standard will displace about 1.6 billion barrels of imported oil over the next decade. As a result of this, we will save $4 billion in imported oil each year. This is a critically important first step toward energy independence for America. As far as our economy goes, this renewable fuels standard amendment will add about $156 billion to our gross domestic product by 2012, spurring about $5.3 billion in new investment and creating 214,000 new jobs. It will boost farm income by $1.3 billion annually. I am very proud of the example set by my own State of Iowa where we have 12 plants producing more than one-fifth of U.S. ethanol. We have two biodiesel plants, which place Iowa first in the Nation in producing this soy-based fuel. Thirty percent of our corn crop goes into value- added ethanol production, supporting over 1,500 jobs, and pumping nearly $50 million annually into our State's economy, which is of critical help to our rural communities. These biofuels plants serve as local economic engines--providing high-paying jobs, capital investment opportunities, increased local tax revenue, and value-added markets for our farmers. A very large share of this production in Iowa is in plants built with the investments of farmer-owners. I want to add a statement. I was looking at one of the charts my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, had, which showed that Archer Daniels Midland had 46 percent of the production capacity--I think is what the chart showed--and all the rest of the plants around filled in the other 54 percent. Well, it is true that Archer Daniels Midland has been a leader in ethanol production in this country. I commend them for it. They have really paved the way. They broke through the barrier. They invested the money in finding new ways and new technologies and a cost-effective means of producing and distributing ethanol. So I believe it would be normal for a company such as Archer Daniels Midland to have a significant share of production capacity because they were there first. They recognized the environmental impact it would have in cleaning up the environment, the impact it would have on saving us from imported oil, the impact it would have on local jobs and the economies in many States, and what it would mean to replace a potentially carcinogenic octane enhancer called MTBE. So, yes, I commend Archer Daniels Midland for being a leader many years ago in starting to produce ethanol before many others even really thought about it. It is a very forward-looking company. They were there from the beginning. I would point out, however, that most of the new productive capacity coming on line in America is from farmer-owned cooperatives, farmer- owned plants. They are the ones building the new plants in cities and communities that dot our countryside. I think you have to look at this in that context. So, yes, I commend Archer Daniels Midland for being a leader in this many years ago, and for bringing us to the point where now we can spin off and spur more ethanol plant construction throughout the United States that basically is owned by smaller entities or by farmers themselves. As I said, these plants serve as local economic engines in so many of our communities. The value-added benefits of ethanol mean a $2 bushel of corn is converted into $5 of fuel and feed coproducts. That is another thing that people forget, that once we take the alcohol out of the corn, we have a very valuable byproduct left that can be fed to livestock, basically to cattle. So you get kind of two bangs for the buck out of it. The renewable fuels standard is more than just about increasing this use of fuels; it is more than just about cutting down on the imported oil; it is more than just the economic engines that it provides in many communities; it is also about providing a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations. Ethanol and biodiesel greatly benefit public health and the environment by protecting air and water quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are nontoxic, biodegradable, energy efficient, and cleaner burning sources of energy than petroleum-based fuels. A new report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change finds that ethanol- blended fuels offer us the greatest promise for reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years. The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that petroleum-based fuels account for 82 percent of carbon monoxide, which, according to the National Research Council, accounts for 20 percent of smog formation in cities. In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that ethanol-blended fuels significantly reduce these emissions, and biodiesel nearly eliminates sulfur emissions that contribute to acid rain and reduces potential cancer-causing compounds. Clearly, the renewable fuels standard represents a momentous opportunity to enhance our Nation's energy security, strengthen our economy, create jobs, boost farm and rural income, and help clean up our environment. The 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels that would ultimately be required by the renewable fuels standard would replace gasoline we currently get from foreign oil, and at the same time reduce the price at the pump. Simply put, renewable fuels make good, common sense for our Nation and all of its citizens. More to the point of the amendment now before us by the Senator from California on State exemptions--there is really no need to grant States exemptions right now because in the underlying bill it already provides for States to be able to apply for and be granted an EPA waiver if they can show the RFS severely harms the economy or environment of the State or if there is an inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet the requirement. So, really, the amendment offered by the Senator from California is unneeded because there is already a waiver provision in there. Well, our renewable fuels standard is something we passed last year overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. I know there will be several attempts here to weaken it. I hope we again have, as we did last year, overwhelming bipartisan support to keep this strong renewable fuels standard in this bill and, get this Energy bill through and to the President so he can sign it this year. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. No. What I am suggesting is that in the past, as we know, a portion of the money was not added to the highway trust fund, it was added to the general fund. And there was a partial exclusion from tax on each gallon of gasohol sold. In effect we are making the highway trust fund whole in the expected Finance Committee amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of the renewable fuels standard amendment to S. 14, the Energy bill on the floor. I paid close attention to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I don't know whether I should make the remarks I have prepared or try to refute the things he said point by point. Maybe I will do a little bit of both and blend them up a little. There was one statement made by the Senator from New Hampshire that I did want to point to at the beginning that I think is somewhat erroneous. The Senator from New Hampshire said there is going to be this money sucked out of the highway trust fund because of the use of ethanol. As everyone knows, there is a Finance Committee amendment that is going to be added to this measure or the Highway bill by both Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. It has broad bipartisan support. That amendment will address this issue. It was reported out of the Finance Committee. As I said, it has broad-based support I believe on both sides of the aisle. This proposal would reshape the ethanol excise tax exemption. Ethanol blended fuels will make a similar contribution to the highway trust fund as regular gasoline.

Mr. HARKIN. The proposal by the Finance Committee will actually add $2 billion to the highway trust fund annually. Yes, I would be delighted to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I am not certain I understand the import of the question.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, look, one more time. The reason we cannot have amendments to this bill is because the House has gone home? We are going to have the biggest increase in the national debt this country has ever seen and the House went home? That is why we cannot amend it? Please explain that to my constituents in Iowa, or anywhere in the country, that somehow it makes sense that we cannot amend it because the House went home and we are going to have the biggest increase in debt in this country.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the debt resolution that we have before us raises the debt limit by $984 billion--a record, the biggest ever in the history of the United States. What does that mean for the average American family? It means we are adding the equivalent of $3,500 to the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America. For a family of four, you just got $14,000 added to your family's debt. These are new charges. That is just what we are about to vote on here. This is the new debt on top of the old debt. Now that is the debt. How about the interest charges? Under the President's budget, we will see interest on the debt rise from an estimated $240 billion this year to $514 billion in 10 years under the assumptions of the budget pushed through by the majority that closely followed the President's plan in many respects. That is $1,800 a year for every person in the country. That is just on the interest, $7,200 a year for a family of four in 2013 and higher sums thereafter. The ranking member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Montana, said it right: We are imposing, No. 1, a debt tax on our children and grandchildren. But we are also imposing an interest debt tax on our families. We just went through this whole thing about this tax bill that skews everything to the wealthy. We all know that. Yet what about our families? I am sure they will say: We got some good things for families. We got a little marriage penalty thing there; we have a child credit, all that. But in 10 years, the interest just on the debt we are voting on today will be $7,200 a year for a family of four, right out of their taxes, $7,200 a year. Tell me about how much we have helped our families with this crazy tax bill we just passed this morning? And right now, I think the vote we are about to take on this debt bill says it all. Tax cuts for those at the top, a few little things for working families, but we are going to gouge the working families of this country by making them pay the interest on the national debt-- $7,200 a year for a family of four, just on the interest. More and more every year we go down the pike, more and more of the taxes that our hard-working Americans pay will go for what? To pay the interest on the national debt. Will we get any more education? No. Will we pay our teachers better? No. Will we invest more in medical research? No. Will we have better prescription drugs for the elderly? No. We won't do all those things because it is going to go to pay the interest on the national debt. That is what we are about to vote on right here. Just the other day I went over to the Cannon House Office Building. They had a big demonstration there of fuel cells, renewable energy. That is what we ought to be investing in. That is what the Government should be investing in to make us energy independent. Guess what. We won't put the resources into that important need like we should. We will dribble a little bit here and there, but we won't do it right. Why? Because we are paying interest on the national debt. And why are we raising the debt? Because we have this big tax cut. Why do we have this big tax cut? It does please the wealthy contributors of the Republican Party. That is a part of it. Now we are going to vote to increase the national debt, put it on the backs of every man, woman, and child in the Nation. Well, there is one other thing. Because of this exploding debt and the interest on the debt that we will have to pay, it is a threat to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The President's tax plan is larger, if made permanent, then the entire 75 year estimated shortfall in both Social Security and Medicare. Later this year, the President says he wants us to work a prescription drug benefit for the elderly for $400 billion. He is going to squeeze everybody into HMOs type organizations. Why? Because we don't have enough money to pay for a good plan because it is going to pay the interest on the national debt so we can cover outrageous giveaways to the very wealthy. I might talk about Medicare fairness. We voted this week on an amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa to take care of some Medicare fairness. Eighty-six Senators voted for it. It was not in the President's plan. The President said, no, we can't do that now. It is squeezing everything out. I want to talk about the specifics of my amendment, to provide for a true cost of tax bills requirement. The official score or estimate of what the tax bill is supposed to cost is $350 billion. But, that is not what really occurred. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Speaker of the House. This was in Congress Daily today: Although the $350 billion tax cut bill moving toward President Bush's desk is half of the original request, House Speaker Hastert told Congress Daily Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House plan. ``The 350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years basically,'' Hastert said. ``But also it could end up being a trillion-dollar bill because this stuff is extendable. That is a fight we are going to have to have, and it is not a bad fight to have.'' There you go. It is not $350 billion. It is closer to $1 trillion. The editorial in the Washington Post this morning said the same thing. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if we keep these tax breaks going, the total cost will be a minimum of $815 billion. And now, after all of that, what are we asked to do? Go to the well and vote for the largest increase in the national debt ever held paying for this tax break for the wealthy. My amendment is very simple. I call it the ``telling the true cost of the tax bill'' requirement. The premise is that Congress and the American people should know the real cost of major tax provisions--not the Enron kind of budgeting we have had for this tax bill. My amendment would require the Joint Tax Committee to reveal the true 10-year cost of provisions in the tax bill that cost over $1 billion a year when fully in effect. In other words, to show the full cost, the Joint Tax Committee would provide true costs regardless of the variety of gimmicks we have seen used in the 2001 tax bill, as well as the tax bill being passed this morning. If a provision sunsets early, the cost will be provided as if it is in place for the full 10-year period. That is what this amendment does. I have the amendment here. I will send it to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden and other colleagues in sponsoring this amendment on contracting in Iraq and in support of the Warner-Boxer amendment No. 826. One of our key objectives for our work in Iraq is to convince the Iraqi people, other nations in the Mideast, and our allies that we are not occupying Iraq to get their oil and benefit big American corporations. We are there to provide the Iraqi people with basic services and infrastructure, human rights, and a more representative government. Given the massive problems we are having there, it is equally important to enable oversight by--and provide information for--Congress and the American people as well. So it is unfortunate that we have started the reconstruction in Iraq on exactly the wrong note. Contracts have been let in secrecy, without open competition, to friends of the administration. The Army Corps of Engineers gave a contract that they thought was potentially worth $7 billion to Halliburton with no competition at all. The contract is classified, and I have been told the reason it is classified is classified too. And information about it has only dribbled out. First we were told it was just to put out oil well fires. Later is slipped out that production and distribution of oil were included as well. Was this in the interest of the Iraqi people? Did they consider investigations suggesting excessive charges in previous Halliburton contracts? how can we tell? The Agency for International Development, under guidance from the Pentagon, has also let contracts in secrecy with only limited competition between hand-picked companies. Bechtel, with its own ties to the administration, got the largest one. Again we don't know how they chose these companies. These practices must end if we are to obtain the trust of people at home or abroad. And I have to say it is not clear that results so far justify this unusual way of doing things. This modest amendment simply says that if the administration is going to let contracts for Iraqi reconstruction without full and open competition, it has to tell Congress and the American people what it is doing. They have to give the amount of the contract, the scope, a description of who was allowed to compete and why, and documents on why they did not allow full competition. Classified information could be redacted, but would still be given to appropriate Congressional committees. Similarly, the Warner-Boxer amendment requires competitive contracting for reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. If the administration does not cut off the Halliburton contract by August 31 and allow full competition for that work, as it has said it would, the amendment requires report to Congress. The amendments will not ensure open competition, but at least they will bring daylight to shine on the administration's activities, and will allow the American and Iraqi people to see what is being done with our money and their future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2003. This legislation, commonly known as Kevin's Law, is dedicated to the memory of 2-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, who died in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with E.coli H7:0157 bacteria. Passage of this bill is vital because on December 6, 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded an earlier District Court decision that removes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard for Salmonella. The 5th Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA, Supreme, seriously undermines the sweeping food safety changes adopted by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen Reduction, HACCP, rule. More recently, there was another court case that calls into question USDA's authority to enforce its microbiological performance standards. A company called Nebraska Beef sued USDA after the Department tried to shut down the plant for numerous alleged food safety violations. The judge in the case granted a temporary restraining order, preventing USDA to take enforcement action. According the 5th Circuit's opinion in Supreme and the Nebraska Beef decision, today, there is nothing USDA could do to shut down a meat grinding plant that insists on using low-quality, potentially contaminated trimmings. These decisions seriously undermine the new meat and poultry inspection system. The Pathogen Reduction Rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year. To address the threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system based on two fundamental principles. The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry had to examine their plants and determine how to control contamination at every step of the food production process, from the moment a product arrives at their door until the moment it leaves their plant. The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for reducing pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard are shut down until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard. So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. In addition, USDA reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have fallen substantially. Therefore the Salmonella standard has been successful. The 5th Circuit Court's and the Nebraska Beef decisions threaten to destroy this success and set our food safety system back years. The other major problem is we have an industry dead set on striking down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards. Ever since the original Supreme decision, I have spent untold hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry products. I have introduced bills to address this issue and I have even worked with industry leaders to reach a reasonable compromise. However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, industry has continually backtracked and moved the finish line. Many times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their ``pressing'' concern of the moment only to have them come back and say we hadn't gone far enough. We cannot let a few bullies in the meat and poultry industry place our children, our families at a increased risk of getting ill or dying, because some of the industry want to backtrack on food safety. In addition, the recent announcement that a cow in Alberta, Canada tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, otherwise known as ``mad cow disease'', provoked the U.S. government to immediately close the U.S.-Canadian border for the trade at beer and beef products. I applaud the current Administration for taking this action to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply until more information is made available about the true extent of the problem. And without downplaying the seriousness of that horrible disease, I think its necessary to look at the impact of BSE in light of other food borne illnesses. Researchers believe that BSE is linked to variable Creutzfeldt-Jakob, vCJD, disease. Since its onset in Britain in 1995, 129 people have died worldwide from vCJD. Foodborne pathogens, on the other hand, have cause 5000 deaths, 125,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses each year. The numbers speak for themselves. The swift and comprehensive response provoked by a single diseased cow in a neighboring country stands in stark contrast to the way our government currently responds to outbreaks of foodbornes illness in our country today. USDA has the ability to shut down the trade from the biggest importer of beef into out country on suspicions of possible food safety problems, but cannot even temporarily shut down one plant that USDA knows has problems. I plan to seek every opportunity to get this language enacted. I think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in reducing dangerous pathogens. I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this legislation without delay. The public's confidence in our meat and poultry inspection system is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2003. This legislation, commonly known as Kevin's Law, is dedicated to the memory of 2-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, who died in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with E.coli H7:0157 bacteria. Passage of this bill is vital because on December 6, 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded an earlier District Court decision that removes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard for Salmonella. The 5th Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA, Supreme, seriously undermines the sweeping food safety changes adopted by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen Reduction, HACCP, rule. More recently, there was another court case that calls into question USDA's authority to enforce its microbiological performance standards. A company called Nebraska Beef sued USDA after the Department tried to shut down the plant for numerous alleged food safety violations. The judge in the case granted a temporary restraining order, preventing USDA to take enforcement action. According the 5th Circuit's opinion in Supreme and the Nebraska Beef decision, today, there is nothing USDA could do to shut down a meat grinding plant that insists on using low-quality, potentially contaminated trimmings. These decisions seriously undermine the new meat and poultry inspection system. The Pathogen Reduction Rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year. To address the threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system based on two fundamental principles. The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry had to examine their plants and determine how to control contamination at every step of the food production process, from the moment a product arrives at their door until the moment it leaves their plant. The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for reducing pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard are shut down until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard. So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. In addition, USDA reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have fallen substantially. Therefore the Salmonella standard has been successful. The 5th Circuit Court's and the Nebraska Beef decisions threaten to destroy this success and set our food safety system back years. The other major problem is we have an industry dead set on striking down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards. Ever since the original Supreme decision, I have spent untold hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry products. I have introduced bills to address this issue and I have even worked with industry leaders to reach a reasonable compromise. However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, industry has continually backtracked and moved the finish line. Many times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their ``pressing'' concern of the moment only to have them come back and say we hadn't gone far enough. We cannot let a few bullies in the meat and poultry industry place our children, our families at a increased risk of getting ill or dying, because some of the industry want to backtrack on food safety. In addition, the recent announcement that a cow in Alberta, Canada tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, otherwise known as ``mad cow disease'', provoked the U.S. government to immediately close the U.S.-Canadian border for the trade at beer and beef products. I applaud the current Administration for taking this action to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply until more information is made available about the true extent of the problem. And without downplaying the seriousness of that horrible disease, I think its necessary to look at the impact of BSE in light of other food borne illnesses. Researchers believe that BSE is linked to variable Creutzfeldt-Jakob, vCJD, disease. Since its onset in Britain in 1995, 129 people have died worldwide from vCJD. Foodborne pathogens, on the other hand, have cause 5000 deaths, 125,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses each year. The numbers speak for themselves. The swift and comprehensive response provoked by a single diseased cow in a neighboring country stands in stark contrast to the way our government currently responds to outbreaks of foodbornes illness in our country today. USDA has the ability to shut down the trade from the biggest importer of beef into out country on suspicions of possible food safety problems, but cannot even temporarily shut down one plant that USDA knows has problems. I plan to seek every opportunity to get this language enacted. I think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in reducing dangerous pathogens. I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this legislation without delay. The public's confidence in our meat and poultry inspection system is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will make time to do it.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. Around 1:30. Yes, I can do that.

Mr. HARKIN. Right now.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I have an amendment on which I will not take much time, if I could just have 15 minutes. I do not know if it will be accepted or not. I ask for 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for a couple more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend from Virginia mentioning that. That is true. That is why I understand we have to have some of this inventory. You are right, we should err on the side of caution in this area. But with the tremendous buildup we have and the amount of money we are talking about here, let's face it, big mistakes can be made and things can happen. I went back one time and I read a lot about the old Truman Commission in World War II that was set up. Here we were, World War II, and we had to respond, as the Senator knows, rapidly at that time. We had to go almost from nothing to build up an Air Force and a Navy and an Army. The enemy was at our gates. But at the same time, the Senate set up a special Committee then under Senator Harry Truman of Missouri. That commission did a number of things. Some people went to jail. Some people paid fines. They saved the taxpayers literally--I don't know if it was billions, at least hundreds of millions of dollars at that time, which would translate into billions at today's inflated levels. They did that in the midst of the Second World War. I am just saying we need some more oversight, and we need some better accounting practices and inventory control systems. Maybe the chairman did not hear me when I said earlier, half facetiously, a couple years ago maybe that when we are contracting out we ought to contract out inventory control to Wal-Mart. They don't lose much. They keep track of everything. As the chairman knows, there are some new technologies out there that are coming on line that will allow us to track----

Mr. HARKIN. Maybe some of this new technology would be what would help us get more control. I thank the chairman. Amendment No. 774 Withdrawn Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to try to get a better handle on this.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their attention, and their responses. I know the Senators and their staffs, on both sides, have worked on this matter going back some years. I appreciate that. This seems like that whack-a-mole type thing; you keep hitting it and something else pops up. From our side, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee side, I have been addressing this since 1995. GAO even said here: Since 1995, we have reported on imbalances in DOD's inventory, and our current work shows that these imbalances continue to exist. I know the chairman and ranking member have a lot on their plate. This is a big bill. There is a lot you have to pay attention to. But somehow we just have to get our hands on this. In response to what Senator Levin had said, we found in one of our reports--I am sure the chairman is very familiar with it--where we had at one point 100 years or more of inventory of some items. Of course they are going to be long obsolete before that hundred years is out. Some of that has been taken care of. I compliment the chairman and ranking member, now and in the past, for attending to that, because a lot of that has been reduced. I compliment you for that. But we still have one problem here--well, one among others--of the secondary inventory and the fact they keep buying, even though they themselves say they do not need it. So I appreciate what you said. I know you have not had a chance to take a look at it. I look forward to my staff and your staff working together and maybe coming up with some things so we can get them moving in the right direction.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this amendment seeks to reduce the wasteful buildup of unneeded inventory at the Department of Defense. Based on the findings of the General Accounting Office, I believe this amendment would save at least $2 billion annually. Last year, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I requested that the GAO prepare a report on the inventory requirements of the Department of Defense. That report has just been printed and released dated May 2003. This is the newest in a series that I have had GAO undertake in recent years on related topics. Pentagon waste is not a new issue, nor is the issue addressed by my amendment the only kind of waste that occurs within DOD. People have pointed out numerous examples of waste in DOD over the years, some quite spectacular. Later in my statement I will talk about the other kinds of waste we uncovered by past GAO reports that I requested. Much has been done to reduce Pentagon waste, and I commend those efforts. The chairman and ranking member, both, and when they have been in reversed positions, have made a great effort in this regard. We have reduced Pentagon waste. However, the Department of Defense remains the largest purchaser of goods in the Federal Government. The size of the bill continues to increase, and we have an authorization bill of $400 billion. That includes $75 billion for procurement. At those levels, we do need to be vigilant and we need to perform an ongoing watchdog role. That is what this amendment is aimed to ensure. I am sorry to say, despite the long history of investigations and GAO reports, many of the problems still have not been solved. That is why I offer this amendment. What the amendment addresses is, the Department of Defense routinely purchases and keeps on hand, for the purpose of meeting the Department's requirements, many items in a category it calls secondary inventory. Secondary inventory means spare and repair parts for weapons. It also includes clothing, medical, and many other items that are not weapon systems themselves. Obviously, there is a large amount of such supplies our military needs to keep on hand--over 2 million items. According to the GAO, the Pentagon has approximately $70 billion worth of this secondary inventory. Unfortunately, out of the $70 billion worth of secondary inventory, there was about $38 billion in excess or unneeded inventory. So we have $70 billion in secondary inventory, much of which is needed; but GAO identified $38 billion in what they call excess inventory, inventory that the Pentagon says they do not even need. That is more than half of the secondary inventory classified as excess. This is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that DOD could find itself with more than half of its secondary inventory above their own requirements. I am sure there are valid explanations why some requirements are misjudged, but to end up with $38 billion worth of unneeded inventory out of a total of $70 billion of inventory seems to me to be a pretty good definition of waste. It is worth pointing out that the Department of Defense generally concurred with this GAO report. The Department did not disagree with these findings. But that is not all. Of the $38 billion in excess secondary inventory, according to the GAO, $1.6 billion was still on order. In other words, we are still paying contractors to make $1.6 billion worth of stuff the Pentagon itself has acknowledged it does not even need. So why weren't the orders canceled? My amendment addresses this problem in two simple ways. First, it requires the Pentagon to cancel those orders for unneeded items where it makes sense; that is, unless the Secretary determines, one, that it will not save money; or, two, the Secretary determines that it will harm national security. Unless he finds either one of those, then the Department must cancel orders for items it does not think it needs. Second, my amendment requires the Pentagon to reduce the excess inventory it already has on hand. Again, if the Secretary determines that, (a), it will not save money or, (b), it will harm national security, then the Department can keep right on storing these items. Otherwise, they have to sell the stuff so we do not pay to keep storing it. According to the GAO, that excess inventory on hand was worth about $36 billion. I believe these two simple steps should save taxpayers at least $2 billion annually without imposing burdensome requirements on the Department of Defense and without compromising defense readiness. I have requested GAO reports in the past, and many of those reports also found significant waste in the Department of Defense. Reports on inventory that the Army and the Navy ship from one location to another found that each service loses track of at least $1 billion worth of shipped items every year. Imagine that. They ship it, they do not know if they shipped it, and they do not know if anyone got it. They lose track of $1 billion a year in inventory. Last July, another report revealed a complete breakdown in tracking and control of Air Force inventory shipped to contractors. The Air Force could not make sure that contractors had asked for items they needed, they could not make sure they had received what was sent, and they could not make sure they used what they got on Government contracts, and they did not follow up on known problems. This was just a report from last summer. Other reports have found that the Pentagon pays too much for common items and buys things we do not need, and on and on. I believe we do have a serious problem in inventory control with the Department of Defense. I half facetiously, a year or two ago when I offered a similar amendment, said that the Government is now contracting out a lot of functions, and the Bush administration seems to be intent on contracting out, that maybe what we really ought to do is contract out inventory control for the Department of Defense to Wal- mart. I can guarantee that Wal-Mart does not lose $1 billion a year in inventory. I guarantee when Wal-Mart orders items, they know if they have been shipped and they know who gets it. I picked on Wal-Mart, but I could name another company. But my point is made. We have a huge bureaucracy, the Department of Defense. They are buying billions of dollars' worth of items with taxpayers' money, and in many cases they cannot account for it. We have the stockpiling of excess items, and they keep right on buying items that they say they do not even need. Would someone please make sense of this to this Senator? Why is the Department of Defense ordering items that it has already said it does not need, yet keeps the orders going? That is what my amendment is attempting to do. Some of the past GAO reports have resulted in improvements. The Navy, for example, claims to have accounted for $2.5 billion of inventory discrepancies. But I am sorry to say the recommendations are frequently not followed. Just on inventory issues, the GAO has more than 30 open recommendations on using accurate data, setting consistent procedures and following them, adopting commercial best practices and modern inventory systems, taking timely actions, and many more--30 open items the GAO has identified to which the Department of Defense simply is not paying attention. My amendment also requires that the Department of Defense report to Congress on what the Department is doing to implement these open GAO recommendations on defense inventory issues. Again, this amendment is a modest step forward. It is needed because the Department has either not been willing or not been able adequately to address, by itself, past findings by the GAO of serious waste. I have chosen to address the single, narrow area of secondary inventory because that is the area where we have fresh information from the GAO, information with which DOD generally concurs. Now, while $2 billion may not be a large amount compared to the $400 billion authorized in this bill, it is still a lot of taxpayer money, and it is being wasted. We ought to stop it. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Is the time 15 minutes equally divided?

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