Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I said, most State legislatures meet every 2 years. Governor Bush's own State didn't even implement the CHIP program for over 2 years. In addition, the States don't even want this block grant. In February of this year, the Governors rejected Bush's proposal. They said: If Congress decides to expand prescription drug coverage for seniors, it should not shift that responsibility or its costs to the States. That was the National Governors' Association. Republicans and Democrats said Bush's proposal won't work. So that won't be immediate. Bush's proposal takes years to get any effect for people. Will it give a helping hand? Well, Bush's plan only covers low-income seniors. Middle-class seniors are told they don't need to apply. That is what Bush's plan is. It only helps low-income. For example, if you are a senior and your income is over $14,600 a year, you get zero, zip, no help at all, from Bush's Medicare proposal. A recent analysis shows that the Bush plan would only cover 625,000 seniors, or less than 5 percent of those who need help. So his plan is not adequate and it is not Medicare. Seniors want Medicare, not welfare. The other thing is that under the Bush proposal for Federal care, for his prescription drug program, seniors would probably have to go to the State welfare office to apply for it. Why is that? Because there is an income cutoff. The agencies in the States that are set up to determine whether or not you meet income guidelines for programs are welfare agencies. So that means that under the Bush program, every senior, to get prescription drugs, has to go down to the welfare agency and show that they don't make over $14,600 a year. That is the first 4 years. Bush's program is for 4 years. States have not acted. As I pointed out, some State legislatures don't even meet except once every 2 years. They have to go down to the welfare office. It only helps those below $14,000 a year. Then what happens after 4 years? After 4 years, Governor Bush's plan becomes even worse because his long-term plan, after 4 years, involves privatizing Medicare. It would raise premiums and force seniors to join HMOs. The Bush plan is the fulfillment of what Newt Gingrich once said when he wanted Medicare to ``wither on the vine.'' Bush's plan after 4 years will begin withering Medicare on the vine because after 4 years, Governor Bush's program leaves seniors who need drug coverage at the mercy of HMOs. Under his plan, they don't get a guaranteed benefit package. The premium would be chosen by the HMOs, and the copayment would be chosen by the HMO. The deductible would be chosen by the HMO. The drug you get, again, is chosen by the HMO--not by your doctor, and not by your pharmacist, but by the HMO. Even worse, the Bush plan would leave rural Americans in the cold. About 30 percent of seniors live in areas with no HMOs. In Iowa, we have no Medicare HMOs. There are only eight seniors in the entire State of Iowa who happen to live near Sioux Falls, SD, who belong to a plan with a prescription drug benefit--eight out of the entire State of Iowa. HMOs are dropping like flies out of rural areas. Almost 1 million Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage just this year. Under the Bush plan, first of all, it is not immediate. States would have to enact these plans. The Governors say they don't even want to do it. Under the Bush plan, Medicare would ``wither on the vine.'' Premiums for regular Medicare would increase 25 percent to 47 percent in the first year alone, and seniors would be forced to join HMOs to receive affordable benefits.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 10 additional minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I know you switched from that to talk about our mutual enemy, Milosevic. But I wanted to, again, thank the Senator for his remarks and his strong support for the Violence Against Women Act. Hopefully, we will get it over here from the House and pass in due course. But I want to ask the Senator this question. The Senator knows the person who heads the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice, the former attorney general of the State of Iowa, Bonnie Campbell. She is the first and only person to head this office in all these years. She has done a great job. I think both sides recognize that. I ask the Senator from Delaware, not only is it important to pass the Violence Against Women Act, to get it reauthorized, but isn't it also equally important to get people on the Federal bench who understand this issue, who have worked on this issue, like Bonnie Campbell, whose nomination is now pending before the Judiciary Committee? I ask the Senator, wouldn't it be a good thing for this country to have someone with Bonnie Campbell's experience and her background and leadership in that office on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals? We have had the hearings. She has been approved. We have had all the hearings. She is supported by the bar association, and by the Iowa Police Association. She has broad-based support from both sides of the aisle. I ask the Senator, wouldn't her confirmation be good for this country? Wouldn't it be good to have someone in the Eighth Circuit like Bonnie Campbell to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act was thoroughly enforced and upheld in our courts?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to engage in a small colloquy with the Senator. I tell my friend from Washington, I meant to get to the floor before the Senator finished speaking on the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I apologize to my friend from Washington who wants to speak. I did want to engage in this colloquy because of the history of the circuit judges. But, more specifically, everybody is now talking about the Violence Against Women Act and how it needs to be reauthorized. That must be done. Yet everybody is falling all over themselves. The House passed it today with 415 votes in the House.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator further, I had been hearing that one of the reasons that it might be hard to get Bonnie Campbell through was, well, this is a circuit court and it is right before an election. You have to understand that in an election year, we don't confirm very many circuit court judges. And so I looked back in the records. I wonder if the Senator can attest to this, since he is on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HARKIN. In 1992, an election year, your committee confirmed nine circuit court judges.

Mr. HARKIN. You know what 415 votes says to me? It says that the House has given Bonnie Campbell an A-plus for her job in implementing the provisions of the Violence Against Women's Act, since it became law in 1994. If you had somebody who had done a terrible job and given a bad impression of what the law was about, no, you would not have had 415 votes. It is obvious to all that Bonnie Campbell has run that office in an exemplary fashion, in a professional manner, and has brought honor to the judiciary, to the Department of Justice, and to this law that we passed here. Yet people are falling all over themselves today talking about how the Violence Against Women Act needs to be reauthorized. It makes sense to put someone on the federal bench who understands this important law because she helped write it and implement it.

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't have all the memory the Senator has.

Mr. HARKIN. Under a Republican President.

Mr. HARKIN. She can help make sure that the law lives, that the Violence Against Women Act is enforced by the courts by being on the Eighth Circuit. Yet she is being held up here. I will tell you, it is not right. I hope when we take up the Violence Against Women Act, which I hope we do shortly, I will have more to say about this sort of split personality that we see here. They say: Yes, we are for the Violence Against Women Act, but, no, don't put a woman on the circuit court who is widely supported, who has headed this office and did it in an exemplary fashion. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator further, is it true that we have only had one circuit judge that was nominated this year, approved?

Mr. HARKIN. The other reason I have heard that they had had trouble with Bonnie Campbell is that she wasn't nominated until early this year. I did some further research. Again, I ask the Senator, he has a lot of institutional knowledge. I looked up the circuit court judges in 1992, to find out when they were nominated and when they were confirmed. If we look, here is one who was nominated in January of 1992, confirmed in September. Here is another one, January of 1992, confirmed in February of 1992. We come clear down here, there is one here, Timothy K. Lewis, nominated in September of 1992, hearing in September, confirmed in October, right before the election, nominated by a Republican President.

Mr. HARKIN. I can tell the Senator, no one has ever said that to me. In fact, Republicans in Iowa ask me why she is being held up. Why isn't she going through? Mainstream Republicans are asking me that. Editorials are being written in Iowa papers saying the Senate ought to move on this nominee and not hold her up. No, not one person has come up to me and said she is not qualified, not one person. When you were chairman and we had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, we had just the opposite of what we have now. Nine circuit court judges were nominated in 1992 who were confirmed the same year.

Mr. HARKIN. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. I had my staff look this up. I did remember Mr. Carnes, who was highly controversial, a very conservative assistant attorney general who was nominated that year, a lot of civil rights groups opposed him because he was considered one of the nation's best attorneys in arguing for the death penalty. There was talk about him being insensitive to civil rights, regarding the death penalty. Even with all of that, we brought him out on the floor and he passed in September of 1992. This was a controversial candidate. But, Bonnie Campbell has bipartisan support. Senator Grassley and I have been calling for a Senate vote on her confirmation. She also has the bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans from my state of Iowa who worked with her when she served as Iowa attorney general. (Mr. L. CHAFEE assumed the chair.)

Mr. HARKIN. She has been in since earlier this year.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to update and bring America's child labor laws into the 21st century. This much-needed bill is titled the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2000 (The CARE Act of 2000). As many of you know, I have been working to eradicate child labor overseas since 1992. At that time, I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, which prohibits the importation of products made by abusive and exploitative child labor. Since then, we have made significant progress. Let me cite just three examples. In Bangladesh in 1995, a precedent-setting memorandum of understanding was signed between the garment industry and the International Labor Organization, which has resulted in 9,000 children being moved from factories and into schools. In Pakistan two years later, another memorandum of understanding was signed to the benefit of hundreds of children sewing soccer balls and to the benefit of their families. In May of this year, it was a pleasure to go to the White House to witness President Clinton signing into law new provisions I authored to flatly prohibit the importing into the U.S. of any products made by forced or indentured child labor and to deny duty-free trade benefits to any country that is not meeting its legal obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. It is important to understand that when the growth of a child is stopped, so is the growth of a nation. In keeping with our nation's commitment to human rights, democracy, and economic justice, the United States must continue to lead the struggle against the scourge of exploitative child labor wherever it occurs. But to have the credibility and moral authority to lead this global effort, we must be certain that we are doing all we can to eradicate exploitative child labor here at home. Sadly, this is not the case as I stand here before you today. This is why I am sponsoring this new legislation to crack down on exploitative child labor in America. I am also heartened by the fact that the Clinton administration and the Child Labor Coalition made up of more than 50 organizations all across our country endorse prompt enactment of this bill. Consider the plight of child labor in just one sector of the American economy--large-scale commercial agriculture. Just three months ago in June, Mr. President, an alarming report entitled ``Fingers to the Bone'' was released by Human Rights Watch. It is a deeply troubling indictment of America's failure to protect child farmworkers who pick our fruits and vegetables every day. As many as 800,000 children in the U.S. work on large-scale commercial farms, corporate farms if you will, often under very hazardous conditions that expose them to pesticide poisoning, heat illness, serious injuries, and lifelong disabilities. The sad truth is that despite very difficult and dangerous working conditions, current federal law allows children as young children to take jobs on corporate farms at a younger age, for longer hours, and under more hazardous conditions than children in nonagricultural lines of work. We must end this disgraceful double standard. Furthermore, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), first enacted in 1938, allows children as young as 10 years old to work in the fields of America's corporate farms. In nonagricultural lines of work, children generally must be at least 14 years of age and are limited to three hours of work a day while school is in session. Truth be told, even those laws are inadequately enforced by the U.S. Labor Department where young farmworkers are concerned. The FLSA simply must be revised and improved to protect the health, safety, and education of all children in America. I also want to call to the attention of my colleagues a five-part Associated Press series on child labor in the United States that was published in 1997. It dramatically unmasks the shame of exploitative child labor in our midst. For example, it graphically portrays the exploitation and desperation of 4-year-olds picking chili peppers in New Mexico and 10-year-olds harvesting cucumbers in Ohio. It documents how 14-year-old Alexis Jaimes was crushed to death, while working on a construction site in Texas when a 5,000 pound hammer fell on him. This is outrageous and intolerable. Children should be learning, not risking their health and forfeiting their future in sweatshops. Children should be acquiring computer skills so we don't have to keep importing every-increasing numbers of H-1B visa workers from abroad, as we are being pressured to support now, and not slaving in the fields or street peddling and being short-changed on a solid education. At bottom, children should be afforded their childhood, not treated like chattel or disposable commodities. Not just here in the United States, but in every country in the world. But we cannot expect to curb exploitative child labor overseas unless America leads by example, cracking down on exploitative child labor in our own backyard. There is no national database on children working in America or the injuries they incur. But there is mounting evidence to suggest there is a growing problem with exploitative child labor in America, as underscored by the recently released Human Rights Watch study delivered to all of our offices and an excellent series of investigative reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). At least 800,000 children are working in the fields of large-scale commercial agriculture in the U.S. The FLSA's bias against farmworker children amounts to de facto race- based discrimination because an estimated 85 percent of migrant and seasonal farmworkers nationwide are racial minorities. In some regions, including Arizona, approximately 99 percent of farmworkers are Latino. Only 55 percent of the child laborers toiling in the fields will ever graduate from high school. Existing EPA regulations and guidelines offer no more protection from pesticide poisoning for child laborers than they do for adult farmworkers. Every 5 days, a child dies from a work-related accident. Mr. President, one of the great U.S. Senators of the 20th century, Hubert Humphrey, used to remind all of us that the greatness of any society should be measured by how it treats people at the dawn and twilight of life. By that measure, we clearly need to do better by America's children. There is no good reason why children working in large-scale commercial agriculture are legally permitted to work at younger ages, in more hazardous occupations, and for longer periods of time than their peers in other industries. As GAO investigators have noted, a 13- year-old is not allowed under current law to perform clerical work in an air-conditioned office, but the same 13-year-old may be employed to pick strawberries in a field in the heat of summer. And so I offer this legislation in order that we fight exploitative child labor here at home with the same resolve that we confront it in the global economy. This legislation will toughen civil and criminal penalties for willful child labor violators, afford minors working in large-scale commercial agriculture the same rights and protection as those working in nonagricultural jobs, prohibit children under 16 from working in peddling or door-to-door sales, strengthen the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Labor to deal with ``hot goods'' made by child labor in interstate commerce, and improve enforcement of our nation's child labor laws. But it is not my purpose to prevent children from working under any circumstances in America. My focus is on preventing exploitation. Accordingly, this bill also preserves exemptions for children working on family farms as well as selling door-to-door as volunteers for nonprofit organizations like the Girl Scouts of America. In conclusion, I want to remind my colleagues that a child laborer has little chance to get a solid education because he or she spend his or her days at work with little regard for that child's safety and future. But it becomes clearer every day that in order for an individual or a nation to be competitive in the high-tech, globalized economy of the 21st century, a premium must be placed upon educating all children. We can't afford to leave any of our children behind. At the bottom, this is why I am sponsoring this legislation to strengthen our child labor laws here at the home and effectively deter and punish those who exploit our children in the workplace. It is time to bring our nation's child labor laws into modern times, so that we can prepare for the future. It is totally unacceptable to me that upon entering the 21st century, the commercial exploitation of children in the workplace continues in our midst--largely out of sight and out of mind to most Americans. It is time to give all of the children in the U.S. and around the world the chance at a real childhood and extend to them the education necessary to competing in tomorrow's high-road workplace.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, it seems to me what we are facing is that the majority party, in charge of the Senate, in charge of the House, they want to replace the tough votes we have to take around here, that we should be taking around here--they want to replace the tough votes with slick 30-second TV ads to try to get through this election. That is breaking down, I think, the people's respect for the Senate. How can you have respect for an institution when we don't get anything done around here? When we say the only time we want to take up the tough issues is after the election, when there will be people here voting on these issues who may have been defeated or maybe not running again, what kind of responsibility, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, is that? We are shirking our responsibility. I hear more and more people saying they are getting dismayed with how the Congress is operating. People ought to be dismayed with the way this place is running right now. We are shirking our responsibilities around here in this regard. As I said, I have been on this Appropriations Committee for 15 years. I have been in the Senate for 15 years. I say to my friend from Minnesota, this is the most do-nothing Congress, the most do-nothing Senate I have seen in 15 years. It is really sad. The Senator talked about visiting schools. I spent all my summer going around visiting elderly people in the State of Iowa and getting story after story about their costs of prescription drugs.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I point out to my friend from Minnesota, in contrast, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, the Democrat leader, said: Let's take them up. Let's have a debate. Don't let anybody say with a straight face or with any credibility that it's the Democrats holding things up. Let's get to the bills. Let's get them done. Let's offer the amendments and move it along. We are ready to debate. We are ready to offer amendments. We are ready to move the process--but we are denied. And again I say, the people of this country are denied the opportunity to have us vote on these measures.

Mr. HARKIN. What I am saying is we are not doing anything to get the bills through.

Mr. HARKIN. That's it. That's what they're saying. Speaker Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, at the beginning of this year promised we would have all of the appropriations bills to the President before the August recess. We are at the end of September and we have only 2 out of 13 through. I say to my friend from Minnesota, this is the first time--and I know how much he cares about education--this is the first time since 1965, when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that we have failed to reauthorize. Because of time? No, we had plenty of time. Look at the Chamber this morning. The Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Iowa are here. We are doing nothing out here.

Mr. HARKIN. And child safety locks on guns.