Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is truly a privilege to be here today to speak in support of this important reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I want to thank Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Mikulski and Kennedy for their leadership and steadfast work toward bringing this for us to consider today. As you know, this is the first reauthorization of these programs in eight long years. The House passed H.R. 782 on a vote of 405-2 yesterday. It's time has come today. The Older Americans Act is the most important Federal senior's services program and has provided essential services to our nation's seniors for the last 35 years. In particular, the program has provided services to those seniors who are vulnerable because poverty, frailty or isolation. As America gets older, we have a growing need for the services and programs authorized by the OAA. We in Iowa have the highest percentage of seniors over the age of 85 in the country. We are ranked 5th in the nation in our percentage of seniors over the age of 65. The services provided through the Older Americans Act provide a lifeline to many of my constituents. I'm proud to support the strengthening of programs such as congregate and home delivered meals, family caregiver support, in-home services for the frail elderly such as those with Alzheimer's disease, home health, and the senior community service program. These programs help Iowa seniors live independently and remain in their homes and communities. One of my constituents told me recently what the OAA means to her: Virginia Mehl, who lives in a rural town in Iowa, had never worked away from her farm home. At the age of 79, faced with the death of her husband, she had to go and find work, cleaning an office. Suffering from fibromyalgia, she was having a real tough time. Thankfully, someone pointed her to Green Thumb, one of the organizations administering the senior community service employment program. With their help, Mrs. Mehl learned computer and office skills, enabling her to be placed in the office where she now works. She told me: ``Green Thumb is the best thing that ever happened to me. [I have] the opportunity to learn new skills, meet new people, and pay for my aqua- exercise classes which I need for my disease.'' Mrs. Mehl is just one example of how the Older Americans Act has been an extraordinary vehicle for helping hundreds of thousands of senior Americans obtain the training and job experience needed to improve their lives and provide economic independence, changing the negative stereotypes about aging, encouraging seniors to embrace new technology and keep up with the changing face of our economy. Seniors in our States have been calling on us since 1995 to reauthorize these important programs. Today, at long last, and with strong bipartisan cooperation, we will do just that.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Agricultural Producer Protection Act of 2000, a bill which will help ensure an open competitive agricultural marketplace. There is no issue raising more concerns in agriculture today than the rapid increase of economic concentration and vertical integration. The structure of agriculture and the entire agribusiness and food sector is being massively transformed--and the pace is accelerating. Large agribusinesses through mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances are controlling more and more of the production and processing of our agricultural commodities. Beyond this horizontal concentration, these large firms are relying on production and marketing contracts to hasten the trend toward vertical integration in agriculture. According to the Department of Agriculture, the top four fed cattle packers control 80 percent of the market, while the top four pork processors control almost 60 percent of the market. In the grain industry, the top four firms control 73 percent of the wet corn milling, 71 percent of soybean milling, and 56 percent of flour milling. This conglomeration of power is limiting producers' marketing choices and adversely affecting the prices they receive. While the market basket of food has only increased by 3 percent since 1984, the farm value of that market basket has plummeted 38 percent. In fact, the farmer's share of the retail food dollar has dropped from 47 percent in 1950 to 21 percent in 1999. In addition, the farm-to-wholesale price spreads for pork increased by 52 percent and for beef by 24 percent in the past five years. But farmers are not the only ones at risk because of the conglomeration of economic power by a few large agribusinesses and the reductions in competition. Consumers are also at risk. I liken arrangement to an hourglass, with many farmers on one side and many consumers on the other side. In the middle is a choke point with just a few large agribusiness firms. We, as consumers, should not become reliant on an every dwindling number of companies for our food. Agribusiness is changing the way they play the game and it is becoming increasingly clear that enforcement of the antitrust and competition laws--including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act--is not enough by itself to ensure healthy competition in agriculture. Congress must step in and clarify the rules of the game before the big conglomerates push the independent producers out entirely. That is what my legislation is designed to do. Consolidation and vertical integration in the agricultural sector is resulting in a great disparity in bargaining power and a gross inequality in economic strength between agribusinesses and producers. The impacts of this disparity are being most dramatically seen in the increased use of contracting in agriculture. I recognize that it is probably inevitable that there will be more contracting for a number of reasons. However, as recognized by several state Attorneys General who have proposed model state contract legislation, contracting with large agribusinesses pose serious problems that our current laws do not reach. First, large companies are increasingly leveraging their economic muscle and control of market information to dictate contract terms to the detriment of producers. Large companies often offer contracts to producers on a ``take it or leave it'' basis. The company tells the farmer to sign a form contract with no opportunity to negotiate different terms and with little or no ability to take time to think about whether or not to sign the contract. Second, large agribusinesses are transferring a disproportionate share of the economic risks to farmers through contracts. The contractual risks producers will face under a contract are usually buried in pages of legalese and fine print. Producers are often stuck with unfair contract terms they did not even know existed because of the lack of opportunity to consult with an attorney or an accountant. Third, increasing use of contracts threatens market transparency. Prevailing prices for agricultural commodities have traditionally been readily available through public transactions. The use of strict confidentiality clauses in contracts veil transactions in secrecy. These clauses prohibit farmers from comparing contracts and negotiating for a fair deal. Farmers are often prohibited from discussing their deals with other producers, let alone with a financial or market advisor, an attorney, or an accountant. Fourth, once a producer enters into a contractual relationship with a company there is virtually no realistic protection from unfair practices, abuses, or retaliation. Most production contracts require producers to make substantial long term capital investments in buildings and equipment prior to ever getting a contract. Once a producer makes the financial commitment, they are offered short term contracts that must be continually renewed. Because of these financial obligations, producers often have no other alternative than to sign whatever contract is offered to them. This situation not only makes it easier for a company to retaliate against those who try to speak up for their rights but also eliminates virtually any bargaining power the producer may have had. They often have no other alternative than to take a contract which further exploits them with unfair terms and which further shifts the economic risks to producers. In addition, if a producer has to litigate individually against an agribusiness conglomerate it is very expensive and they are at a huge disadvantage. The Agricultural Producer Protection Act of 2000 provides reasonable oversight of agricultural contracting that will address these problems and promote fair, equitable, and competitive markets in agriculture. The Act would: (1) require contracts to be written in plain language and disclose risks to producers; (2) provide contract producers three days to review and cancel production contracts; (3) prohibit confidentiality clauses in contracts; (4) provide producers with a first-priority lien for payments due under contracts; (5) prohibit producers from having contracts terminated out of retaliation; and (6) make it an unfair practice for processors to retaliate or discriminate against producers who exercise rights under the Act. My legislation also recognizes that there must be a balance between providing oversight of contracting and addressing the root of the problem--the growing disparity in bargaining power between large agribusinesses and independent producers. Independent farmers can compete and thrive if the competition is based on productive efficiency and delivering abundant supplies of quality products at reasonable prices. But no matter how efficient farmers are, they cannot survive a contest based on who wields the most economic power. Because of the increased levels of concentration and vertical integration in agriculture, it is imperative that Congress facilitate a more competitive and balanced marketplace for negotiations between large agribusinesses and producers. The Agricultural Producer Protection Act of 2000 provides farmers with the tools necessary to bargain more effectively with large agribusiness conglomerates for fair and truly competitive prices for the commodities they grow. Congress passed the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 to ensure that farmers could join together to market their commodities without fear of interference or retribution from processors. Unfortunately, the law has several weaknesses which prevent it from truly helping producers generate enough market power to bargain effectively with large processors. The law: (1) does not require that processors bargain with association members; (2) contains a loophole allowing agribusinesses to refuse to bargain with producers for any reason besides belonging to an association, which makes it much easier to manufacture an excuse for why they refuse to deal with association members; and (3) does not give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to impose penalties for violations of the Act, which greatly reduces the incentive for processors to obey the law. My legislation addresses these shortcomings. The Agricultural Producer Protection Act of 2000 sets up a procedure where farmers can voluntarily form an association of producers and petition to the Secretary to become accredited. Once accredited, agribusinesses are required to bargain in good faith with the association of producers. This requirement will help producers organize in order to negotiate fairly and effectively on the price and marketing terms for their commodities. In addition, my legislation gives the Secretary increased investigative and enforcement authority to ensure that these large processors follow the law. Finally, my legislation amends the Packers and Stockyards Act of 2000 to give the Secretary administrative enforcement authority to stop unfair practices in the poultry industry. Unlike the livestock industry, the Secretary does not currently have authority to take administrative actions, including holding hearings and assessing civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act in the poultry industry. My legislation addresses this discrepancy and responds to the Administration's repeated requests for this authority. Unfortunately, current law has resulted in little being done to stop the rapid consolidation and vertical integration in agriculture which is threatening both farmers and consumers. We must address this trend now before it builds more momentum, making independent farmers a footnote in the history books and putting consumers at the mercy of large agribusiness companies. My legislation attacks the problems resulting from agribusiness concentration and vertical integration in two very fundamental ways. First, it provides reasonable oversight of contracting practices in order to stop the current inequalities and unfair practices farmers are facing due to the lack of bargaining power. But, I also recognize that we must address the increasing disparity in bargaining power head on. My legislation gives producers the tools necessary to enhance their bargaining position in order to negotiate fairly and equitably on the price and marketing terms for their commodities. I believe both must be done in order to ensure a fair, open agricultural marketplace.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator points out that most people pay payroll taxes. Especially in the income brackets where they are lacking health insurance, they are paying more in payroll taxes than they are income taxes. That is why you are only getting 600,000 more people with health insurance at a cost of $18,000 in tax incentives per person per year. What a giveaway. Does the Senator agree that for those income groups that lack a lot of health insurance coverage--and that is low-income people who are working for minimum wage or maybe above minimum wage, or working for small businesses that can't afford to give them health insurance coverage in our small towns and communities --would it not be better or cheaper, fairer to expand the Medicaid program or the CHIP program to cover the kids?

Mr. HARKIN. That is true. That is the way the legislative process works. I am not always right. You are not always right. Republicans are not always right. But if we work together in that kind of a spirit, it can be worked out. That is the way it should be done.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right. Again, I will just add on top of that, the other unfairness part of this bill is that they didn't what they should have to really expand health insurance coverage in a meaningful way to low-income people. I am talking about people who are working, not people who are on Medicaid and getting coverage. I am talking about low-income people above the poverty line and modest income people who are working hard, making $20,000 a year; they may have a couple kids. They are not in this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened somewhat tentatively to the comments made by my friend from Arizona. He talked about ending the partisan gridlock. If you want to end the partisan gridlock, take a look at the tax bill that just came over. This package was never considered in the Finance Committee, never considered on the Senate floor. No Democrats were ever invited to any of the meetings to work it out. There was no consultation with any Democrat. No paper was ever shared with any Democrat in putting it together. It was stuffed into an unrelated conference report. It was sent over here for a vote. And the Republicans have said to the Democrats: Take it or leave it, but you have no part in drafting it, debating it, or anything else. I would say, if you want to end the partisan gridlock, Republicans should start working in a bipartisan fashion around here to fashion. I hear George Bush out there. He is saying he wants to come to Washington and end this gridlock. I say to Governor Bush: Pick up the phone and call Senator Lott. Pick up the phone and call Speaker Hastert. Tell them to quit playing these kinds of games, these partisan games around here, where we get a tax bill on the Senate floor, in the closing days of this year, that we have had absolutely no part in-- absolutely none whatsoever.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I would be glad to.

Mr. HARKIN. This is not fair. After listening to the Senator, it raises another question in my mind. Sometimes it seems that Republicans don't believe there is anybody in this country who makes $20,000 or $30,000 a year. Maybe they think this is a myth. Sometimes it seems like they don't exist for them.

Mr. HARKIN. True.

Mr. HARKIN. Sometimes they ask can we afford it. I ask: can we afford to add 600,000 additional individuals under their bill by giving a tax incentive for health insurance that costs $18,000 per person per year that gains coverage, how can we afford that? Can we afford it when there are so many ways that far more people could acquire health insurance with a far smaller incentive, but one that was properly designed for the purpose.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. We are going to have the debate tomorrow. We will be talking more tomorrow on the tax bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. No.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to ask the Senator, did he hear the quote by about Governor Bush--there was a question asked about agriculture. Vice President Gore answered the question and it came to Governor Bush. He started talking about using food as a weapon. He made this quote--he said: We have got to stop using food. It hurts the farmers. Does the Senator remember that quote?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I appreciate the Senator's comments and reading those quotes. I wonder, did the Senator listen to the third and final debate?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for mentioning some of those quotes. I didn't hear them all because I was on my way to the floor from my office.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator to yield to me for a second.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle, Jeffords, and Johnson are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure. The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital. The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital-- especially those involving value-added agricultural processing. In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America. In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered because of a lack of equity. My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of Economic Development's ``Community Economic Betterment Account'' or CEBA, which recently set aside some funding for venture capital. But far more resources are needed in Iowa and across Rural America. That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers. We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a strong start in the support of Senators Craig, Daschle, Jeffords, and Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank, the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation. The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be issued. Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council, or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses. Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own capital. The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects, representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural communities of various sizes would be encouraged. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a reality.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle, Jeffords, and Johnson are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure. The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital. The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital-- especially those involving value-added agricultural processing. In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America. In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered because of a lack of equity. My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of Economic Development's ``Community Economic Betterment Account'' or CEBA, which recently set aside some funding for venture capital. But far more resources are needed in Iowa and across Rural America. That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers. We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a strong start in the support of Senators Craig, Daschle, Jeffords, and Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank, the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation. The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be issued. Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council, or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses. Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own capital. The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects, representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural communities of various sizes would be encouraged. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a reality.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has proclaimed October 25 ``Iowa Disability Mentoring Day.'' Today, Iowans around the state will work to raise awareness of the benefits for all of us of increasing employment opportunities for young people with disabilities. And young people with disabilities will learn about job opportunities through on-site work experiences, job shadowing, and other forms of job mentoring. Many of the mentors will themselves be people with disabilities. All children need role models, and I'm thrilled that through mentoring, children with disabilities will see tangible evidence that their disability does not diminish their ability to participate in the cultural, economic, educational, political, and social mainstream. It's no surprise that Iowa is celebrating disability mentoring, because we are a leader in the field. This week, Iowa received a Federal grant under the Work Incentives Improvement Act for the Working Together So All Can Work program. This grant will enable more people with disabilities to participate in the workforce. And Iowa Creative Employment Options, along with the University of Iowa Hospital School, has started up the Healthy and Ready to Work Mentoring Project. The project is run by a mentoring group of young adults with disabilities who have achieved their career goals or are pursuing the education and training they need to reach their goals. These young men and women are college students, computer programmers, teachers, television directors, social workers, and businesspeople. On top of their studies and jobs, they are working with high school guidance counselors, meeting with students with disabilities, and developing a resource book to help students with disabilities and other students prepare for their careers. And they're planning to do even more in the future. Mr. President, ten years ago, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We said no to exclusion, dependence, and paternalism for people with disabilities, and we said yes to inclusion, independence, and empowerment. Iowa Disability Mentoring Day and projects like the Healthy and Ready to Work Mentoring Project and the Working Together So All Can Work Program bring the ADA to life every day by increasing the independence and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities. I thank everyone who is a part of these efforts.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the most serious issues facing our national air transport system is the shortage of space--both in the air and on the ground at key airports. We've seen this most clearly this past summer in the backups at Chicago O'Hare and in much of the airspace in the Northeast. Americans have developed a tremendous appetite for air travel for both leisure and business needs. In the last few years, with our economy so strong, the result has been an increasing number of packed planes all year round, especially during the peak summer travel season. But for many Americans trying to enjoy some vacation time, this summer was a season of discontent filled with bad weather, aging air traffic control systems and airline-employee difficulties. Countless Americans spent hours sitting on the tarmac at O'Hare waiting to take off, or sitting in the airport lounge, waiting for their planes to arrive. Thousands of Americans found themselves delayed, stranded and disappointed. A once-reliable system has become increasingly unreliable. Some of these events are unavoidable. Clearly, there are times when bad weather requires us to delay or cancel flights. But when an airport is near capacity, even the tiniest alteration in landing and takeoff timing can quickly turn into considerable delays. We've been seeing the warning signs for years. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission, chaired by the current Secretary of Commerce, Norm Mineta, warned us three years ago about our looming air travel crisis. In fact, the very first sentence of the Commission's report reads as follows: Without prompt action, the United States' aviation system is headed toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen, it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our position in the global marketplace. Mr. President, the future is now. As we have turned the corner into the 21st Century, the predicted air traffic control crisis is clearly upon us. I believe FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has done a terrific job. However, there are a number of steps that the FAA and the airlines must take--in both the short and long run--to modernize the air traffic control system and reduce congestion, particularly as it affects the heavily traveled northeast air corridors between New York, Boston, and Washington, DC, and Chicago and other key Midwestern airports. In the short term, the FAA needs to make better use of existing capacity. This means better communication between the FAA and airlines when bad weather ties up key airports and decisions must be made about reducing or rerouting air traffic. Right now, airlines have no coordinated plans on bad weather days, and they're left to guess whether their competitors will cancel or slow their flights or not. Now I recognize that airlines can't simply pick up the phone and talk to each other about capacity decisions. Such discussions would run afoul of our nation's antitrust laws. But Congress and FAA should consider whether they should grant some form of very limited immunity so that airlines can discuss with the FAA the most efficient way to cope with bad weather. Another short term solution involves alternative routings. I understand that the airlines, working cooperatively with FAA, have begun flying many routes at lower altitudes. This practice is costly since flying at lower altitude burns more fuel--but it should help increase airspace capacity. FAA also needs to explore the possibility of accessing airspace previously reserved for military use. Much of this military airspace can be made available to commercial operations on a short-term basis during severe weather. The FAA must also add additional air traffic controllers. And FAA must make sure that these controllers have the most modern, up-to-date tools available to do their jobs. The FAA needs to take full advantage of GPS technology to allow more direct routings between airports. FAA also needs to develop technology to allow pilots and air traffic controllers to communicate more effectively with each other. One such technology is advanced data links which could reduce controllers' workload and improve their ability to create and communicate alternative routines in severe weather. It would be far more accurate and efficient for many air traffic control commands to be given to pilots in written form. The airlines and the FAA are currently undergoing tests along those lines, but I believe they must move forward more quickly. Finally, we in Congress must continue to increase FAA research and operating budgets. We need to expand programs that examine the problems of aging aircraft. And we need to invest more in technologies that will give both pilots and air traffic controllers the very best equipment for making safe decisions. We've got to fully fund NASA aviation programs like the one designed to better detect wake-vortex trailing behind aircraft. Such technology can allow the FAA to narrow the decades old 7-mile separation standard and free up more airspace. But these actions alone will not be sufficient. Our current system can barely handle the roughly 600 million passengers that currently travel each year. Yet, it is projected that the system will need to handle an expected 1 billion annual passengers within the next decade. Indeed, our demand for air travel seems ready to overrun our over- burdened system. In some cases, we do need to add additional runway capacity. Let's look specifically at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. O'Hare is a place that I--and hundreds of thousands of fellow Iowans who land or connect through there every year--know well. On a blue-sky day, it's one of the best, most efficient airports in America. However, when the rain clouds or thunderstorms roll in, O'Hare can become one gigantic travel obstruction. When O'Hare backs up, the result is a monumental ripple effect on the entire air traffic control system from Los Angeles to Boston. Because of its central location and population base, Chicago O'Hare has developed into the first or second largest hub airport in this country. It is the only hub that has two major airlines which maintain competing hub operations. This is good for the citizens of Chicago and Illinois, and it is also good for the people of Iowa and surrounding states that use O'Hare to connect to distant destinations. We in Iowa can connect to our final destinations through such hubs as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati, St. Louis or Denver. However, the largest share of Iowans choose to go through O'Hare because it is the largest and most convenient hub for our citizens. O'Hare also provides far more international connections than those other airports. In fact, well over 50 airlines operate there. In the past 12 months, more than 360,000 of my fellow Iowans have flown through O'Hare. So the problems at O'Hare are not just a Chicago issue, they are a Midwestern issue, and they are a national issue. This situation calls for immediate action. I strongly believe that the most important step we can take to begin to alleviate our national airline crisis is to provide additional facilities for planes to land and take off at Chicago's O'Hare airport. I believe O'Hare should logically have additional parallel runways to provide expanded capacity. As we move into this new century, we need to ensure that the critical pathways of our air transport system are not encumbered by local disagreements, which constrain the needs of interstate commerce. In addition, if we want to foster increased competition between airlines and see continued service to O'Hare from the smaller commercial airports like Burlington and Waterloo in Iowa, and if we want to expand services to cities like Sioux City, then we must provide additional take off and landing space for new airlines. Some have suggested building a new airport south of Chicago to relieve the problems at O'Hare. I feel that this is a poor policy choice. This proposed new airport has yet to attract any airline tenants who would pay for it. Furthermore, this proposed airport would drain customers away from Chicago's Midway Airport, which is the 9th busiest airport in America and provides point to point flights to over 50 cities. In addition, in order to build this new airport, we would have to take 24,000 acres of farmland out of production. Building another airport in Chicago does not solve our current problems at O'Hare. The solution is new runways at O'Hare. O'Hare certainly has the space for them. We know that building new runways is far more cost-effective than spending billions of dollars on a new airport. And new runways would mean an immediate reduction in delays at O'Hare. These new runways would allow simultaneous landings during all weather periods-- something the current configuration does not allow. Normally, in order for a runway to be built, approval must be granted by the operator of the airport--the City of Chicago in the case of O'Hare--and the FAA. However, under Illinois law, the Governor of Illinois, through his Department of Transportation, must also approve such a plan. Speaking as a friendly neighbor from Iowa, I am sending a letter to both Mayor Richard M. Daley and Governor George H. Ryan asking that they approve new runways in the interest of improving our entire national air transport system. While I am not privy to all of the local concerns surrounding O'Hare, I know that all airports confront noise mitigation problems. I also know that Chicago O'Hare has the best-funded and most extensive sound mitigation program of any airport in the country. I applaud the Mayor for that far-sighted undertaking. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I offer my assistance to the Mayor and my distinguished colleagues from Illinois to ensure that appropriate Federal dollars are channeled into that effort. I would say to Governor Ryan, who, I understand, favors a new airport, that I do not see much in the way of Federal assistance for new airport construction in the foreseeable future. Airports today are built and/or rehabilitated by airport tenants and their passengers. I believe that the most efficient way to minimize our tax dollars is to maximize our current facilities and continue to upgrade our air traffic control system. Earlier this year, the Senate passed overwhelmingly and the President signed, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, commonly known as Air21. As many of my colleagues know, I worked closely with Senators Grassley, McCain, Hollings, Rockefeller and Durbin to draft the provision in the Air21 legislation that phases out the artificial slot-constraints at O'Hare by July 1, 2002. The intent of our effort was to increase small and mid-sized communities' access to the national air transportation system via O'Hare and to provide for increased competition at that premier connecting hub. This increased access is critical for business wishing to settle and grow in small and mid-sized communities. While we succeeded in eliminating the barrier posed by slots, it is clear to me that O'Hare's runway, gate, and terminal space constraints continued to keep small and mid-sized communities from fully realizing the benefits of the Air21 legislation. I was extremely pleased to hear about the substantial progress in Chicago's World Gateway program. This program calls for $3.2 billion in infrastructure investments over the next several years at O'Hare--including 20 new gates and 2 new terminals. My understanding is that the two major carriers at O'Hare-- United Airlines and American Airlines--have reached agreement with the City on this. I congratulate Mayor Daley on his work in bringing that agreement to closure. I also applaud American and United for their far- sighted investment in O'Hare. I only request that every effort be made to accelerate that program and to assure that space is allocated to smaller aircraft that serve smaller cities so that small town America gets a fair shake. Without new runways, we will still be constrained by weather and air traffic control problems. It is time to remove this barrier to small and mid-sized community access to O'Hare. And it is time to expand our current national air traffic system in an effective, cost-efficient, cost-efficient way. We have neither the time nor the money nor the political will to build a new airport. Instead, we need to maximize the resources we already have. In the end, we may have to find a federal solution to this national problem. New runways would make O'Hare and our entire national air transport system run more smoothly. I am certain that the hundreds of thousands of Iowans and others across the country who travel through O'Hare each year would appreciate this improvement. As would all those whose travel plans to other hubs and destinations are upset because aircraft are tied up at O'Hare. There is no more efficient, effective solution to aircraft delays in the Midwest and much of the Northeast than providing additional runway capacity at O'Hare.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few brief remarks about one of our colleagues and a good friend of mine who is retiring this year. Senator Lautenberg is a perfect example of the American dream come true. He grew up the son of immigrants, joined the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II, and then attended Columbia University on the G.I. bill. After graduation, Senator Lautenberg helped found a payroll services company called Automatic Data Processing. He soon became the firm's CEO, and, with 33,000 employees, his company is now one of the largest computing services companies in the world. But Senator Lautenberg knew that the American dream isn't just about making it to the top. It's about giving back once you get there. That's why he ran for the United States Senate, and that's why, during his eighteen years in this Chamber, he's fought hard to make our country better for all Americans. He has fought hard to leave the ladder of opportunity down for others to climb. He's fought to improve transportation. His legislation and leadership has built and modernized highways and bridges and Amtrak rails across this country, and he's worked hard to make sure our planes and trains and cars are safe. Frank Lautenberg has fought to clean up our environment. Over the course of his career, he's worked on legislation to improve the Superfund program, redevelop Brownfields, force industry to cut down on pollution, clean up our beaches and protect our air and water. And he's fought to balance our budget. Senator Lautenberg focuses his sharp, business mind on the work of the Budget Committee, where he is ranking member and he helped move us from record deficits to record surpluses. And Senator Lautenberg has taken on special interests like few others. He took on the gun lobby when he authored the domestic violence gun ban and other laws to fight gun violence. And he's one of the strongest supporters of the Brady bill in this Congress. He took on the liquor lobby when he became the lead sponsor of the bill that raised the drinking age to twenty-one. And he sponsored the recent provision in the transportation appropriations bill to lower the blood alcohol content standard to .08--a provision that's going to save hundreds of lives each year. And he's taken on big tobacco. When you fly on a commercial flight now, and you can actually take a breath without choking on smoke from other passengers, you can thank Senator Frank Lautenberg, because he wrote the law that bans smoking on airplanes. You know, after he got that bill passed, I was flying out to Iowa, and several flight attendants came up to me and said, ``Senator, can you please thank Senator Lautenberg for us. We can finally work now without all that smoke.'' I hear that to this very day, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey always gets first class service even when he sits in coach. I still can't quite believe that Senator Lautenberg is leaving us. But I hope that wherever he goes, he'll find a new way to use his energy, intelligence, and talent to serve the American people. Our country can't afford to lose someone of his caliber. My wife Ruth and I have been privileged to be friends of Frank since we first came to the Senate in 1985. We have been privileged to travel on many trips, on many congressional delegations with Senator Lautenberg, as he confronted our enemies abroad and spoke with our friends abroad, to strengthen our U.S. position both in our economic endeavors with other countries and in our military position overseas. We will miss him from this body, but I of course will not miss him as a friend. I sincerely hope that whatever Frank Lautenberg does in the future, he will make himself available for further public service. Someone of his caliber and of his talent, of his compassion, and of his interest in making sure we leave the ladder of opportunity down for all Americans to climb, someone such as that we can't afford to lose from public life. So, Frank, we wish you Godspeed, the best in all your endeavors, the best of health and happiness in your future life. But please, if duty calls for public service, I know you will answer. I thank the Presiding Officer for affording me the opportunity to make these comments this evening.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Leahy for your commitment and leadership on this issue. micronutrient funding