Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if we are for equal pay for women and men who do the same work, then this is the amendment to do it--the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced under Senator Daschle's leadership. It provides stronger remedies in wage discrimination cases and provides resources to educate employers on wage discrimination. It ensures that women cannot be retaliated against for sharing their pay information with fellow employees. It is time to stop giving America's women lipservice for equal pay for equal work, but to actually do something to make it happen. That is what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kennedy.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced under Senator Daschle's leadership. It addresses an important economic issue--an issue that affects women, working families, retirees and America's children. I'm talking about the wage gap between women and men and how this legislation would work to close it. You might think since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the wage gap wouldn't exist. But women are still paid only 73 cents for every dollar a white man earns. Part of the problem is that we need to do a better job of enforcing that law. That's why I am a proud cosponsor of this bill that would strengthen the Equal Pay Act. This legislation would allow those who win their wage discrimination claims in court, to collect punitive and compensatory damages. It would put new money into employer education and honor employers with best practices. And, it would ensure that women can not be retaliated against by their employers for sharing pay information. Senator Daschle's bill is a modest but needed step in ending pay discrimination. It has received strong support from the Administration and from advocates for working women, such as the AFL-CIO and the Business and Professional Women, the National Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. This body also has before it, the Fair Pay Act, legislation that I have introduced which takes the next step to closing the wage gap. It targets female-dominated jobs that are routinely underpaid and undervalued. My bill would require wages be set based on responsibility, skill, effort and working conditions. The simple fact remains--working families face the problem of wage discrimination every day and lose billions of dollars in wages because of it. The average working woman loses $420,000 over a lifetime due to the wage gap. We cannot continue to short-change women and families. It is our hope that for working women today, that this Congress will pass the Paycheck Fairness amendment to help end the wage gap. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me read the exact language of the Grams amendment. Revenue offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer, for each fiscal year, from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund established under section 1817 of the Social Security Act . . . an amount equal to the decrease in revenues to the Treasury for such fiscal year by reason of the amendment made by this section. I rest my case. They all voted for it transferring money from General Treasury to Social Security. That is the Grams amendment. They all voted for it.

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

Mr. HARKIN. How much time am I recognized for?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will use it for a small rebuttal. I noticed my friends on the other side going after the Social Security trust funds. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, had an amendment to put money into the Social Security trust fund, and they all voted for it. So much for being consistent around here. Quite frankly, I listen to the arguments on the other side, and I think my friends from the other side want to privatize Social Security. On top of that, they want to say you do not get Social Security until you are 70. They want to raise the retirement age. Don't let all that fog over there cloud what we are trying to do. We are trying to change the motherhood penalty so women are not penalized raising children and getting Social Security. Secondly, our amendment says widows ought to get at least 75 percent of their spousal benefit, rather than the 50 to 60 percent now. Lastly, when we pay down the national debt, you are right, take the savings from that and stick it into Social Security so that money will be there for future generations.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I call up amendment 3840 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, women in America have made significant strides for equality and fair treatment. They have more opportunities and face less discrimination. However, there are still gross inequities, and this is particularly true in Social Security. The average Social Security benefit received by a man is modest, about $10,508 on average in 1998. But for the 21 million American women who depend on Social Security, their average benefit is over 25 percent less, just $7,836 a year. That is 25 percent less to pay for prescription drugs; 25 percent less to pay for food; and 25 percent less to pay for the rent and utilities. Largely as a result of these lower Social Security benefits, elderly women are twice as likely to be poor than older men. Fully, 19 percent of single older women--those who have been widowed, divorced, or never married--live in poverty. There are a number of reasons for this. Women live longer than men. Women earn less during their working years due to wage discrimination and other factors. And women reach retirement with smaller pensions and other assets than men. Parts of the problem lie with the Social Security itself. Our amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Mikulski, Senator Leahy, and Senator Murray, tries to fix two of these problems in Social Security. First, under current law, when a man dies, his widow sees only 50 to 66 percent of the couple's previous combined Social Security benefit. In one day, her basic income is cut by as much as half. However, the official poverty rate for a single person is 79 percent of that for a couple. That means that experts have determined it takes about 79 percent of a couple's income for a single person to maintain a minimum standard of living. So the current widow's benefit forces many older women into poverty upon the death of their spouse. Our amendment would change that by increasing the Social Security survivors' benefit to at least 75 percent of the combined benefits of the husband and wife. This simple change will provide a greatly needed boost to more than 3 million low- and moderate-income widows and widowers. The second part of our amendment addresses the Social Security motherhood penalty. The motherhood penalty is just this. In Social Security, it provides lower benefits for women who take time off their jobs to raise their children or to care for a sick parent. Our amendment would eliminate this penalty by allowing people to take time out of the workforce to raise a child or to care for a dependent relative, and to eliminate up to 5 years of zero or very low earnings from those used to calculate their future Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits are based on your average earnings over 35 years. This generally works for men who spend an average of 39 years in the workforce. When Social Security was established in 1935, most women stayed at home. It was assumed most women would get benefits through their husbands. The 35-year average formula fails to recognize that today an increasing number of women work but also take time off to raise children. Thus, the average woman is in the workforce 27 years today. The other 8 years are counted as earning zero dollars, resulting in lower benefits. Our amendment recognizes the importance of care giving, of women taking time out of the workforce to have children, and allows up to 5 years of zero or lower earnings to be exempted when calculating future retirement benefits. I will just give a brief example. Suppose you have a woman who worked throughout her life but took time off to raise three children. She worked for a total of 30 years, retired at age 65. In those 30 years she averaged $20,000 a year in earnings. But since she had 5 years with no earnings while caring for her children, her lifetime average earnings calculated on a 35-year formula is $17,142. This entitles her to an annual Social Security benefit of $9,369. Under our amendment she would be allowed to erase those 5 zero-earning years, bringing her lifetime average back up to $20,000. As a result, her annual benefits would be increased by about $800, a significant and needed boost. The motherhood penalty will become increasingly important as more women receive benefits based on their own earnings. Today, about 37 percent of women receive Social Security benefits based on their own earnings rather than getting the spousal benefit. But this is expected to rise to 60 percent over the next two generations, by 2060. Finally, the third part of our amendment makes a major contribution to shoring up Social Security for the future. What we do is dedicate the interest savings from paying off the national debt to Social Security. By doing this, we are using good economic times to prepare for the future. These interest savings are substantial, totaling about $120 billion this decade, and growing to $250 billion a year by 2015. This simple step of locking away these savings for Social Security would assure Social Security's fiscal health for the next 50 years. What we are saying is when we buy down the national debt, the savings in the interest payments on that, which would normally go to general revenues, will go to Social Security and not to general revenues. Again, our amendment offers a clear choice. If you want to make Social Security sound and secure for the next 50 years, you should vote for this amendment. If you want to do away with the motherhood penalty and make sure that women have their proper years counted so we do not discriminate against them for raising children, then I think you should vote for this amendment. If you think millions of moderate-income women deserve a financial boost, making sure they get at least 75 percent of their spouse's benefits rather than the 50 to 66 percent they get now, and get a lot of women over that poverty line, I think you should vote for this amendment. There are three parts to this amendment: Do away with the motherhood penalty; second, make sure the spousal benefits are at least 75 percent of their spouse's upon death; third, use the savings from the interest payments to put into Social Security rather than general revenues. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I do not have any time left.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the remainder of the time to the cosponsor of the amendment, the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield back all time on this side on the Roth amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it seems as if we can take all kinds of time on the Senate floor--hours, days--talking about how we are going to benefit the richest people in America, many of whom inherited their wealth. After all, that is what estates are; they are wealth that is passed on from one generation to another. I do not have anything against that, but it seems to me we spend an undue amount of time talking about how we are going to help the richest, most well-off people in our country, who, by and large, can pretty well take care of themselves. So I am going to diverge a little bit because I want to talk about a group of individuals in this country who do not fall into that Fortune 500 or 400 or whatever it is--the Forbes 400--people who have the big estates. I want to talk about a group of people who have been discriminated against in our society for far too long and with whom we in Congress had made a pact 10 years ago and President George Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act to say that we, as a nation, are no longer going to tolerate discrimination against any individual in this country because of his or her disability. July 26--a couple weeks from now--will mark the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As those of us who worked so hard for the ADA predicted, the act has taken its place among the great civil rights laws in our history. On July 26, 1990, we, as a country, committed ourselves to the principle that a disability in no way diminishes a person's right to participate in the cultural, economic, educational, political, and social mainstream. By eliminating barriers everywhere--from education to health care, from streets to public transportation, from parks to shopping malls, and from courthouses to Congress--the ADA has opened up new worlds to people with disabilities. People with disabilities are participating more and more in their communities, living fuller lives as students, coworkers, taxpayers, consumers, voters, and neighbors. As part of the anniversary celebration--the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act--I recently announced the ``A Day in the Life of the ADA'' campaign. I am asking people across the country to send stories about how their lives are different because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are going to be using these stories to celebrate our accomplishments and to learn more about what we still must do to give all Americans an equal opportunity to live out the American dream of independence. We already have received many wonderful stories that show how the ADA is changing the face of America. I look forward to receiving many more. I ask the people to either send these stories by e-mail to adastories@harkin.senate.gov or send them to ``A Day in the Life of the ADA,'' c/o Senator Tom Harkin, 731 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510. We want to tell these great stories in the celebration that will take place on July 26. There will be ceremonies at the White House. We will take time here in the Congress to talk more about the Americans with Disabilities Act, what it is, what it was meant to do, and what it has accomplished. The ``A Day in the Life of the ADA'' campaign will create a historical record of the profound impact the ADA has had on the daily life of people with disabilities. I will share with you a couple stories I have already received. I spoke with a woman in Des Moines, IA, who told me that not only had the ADA helped her son, who has a disability, get a job working at a restaurant, but that because of the fact he has that job he has become a role model for other kids with disabilities, to show them that they, too, can get jobs and work. I recently met and spoke with Theresa Uchytil from Urbandale, IA. Theresa is this year's Miss Iowa and hopefully will be next year's Miss America. She was born without a left hand. She told me that the ADA has given her and other people with disabilities confidence to pursue their own dreams. I received a letter from a woman in Waukegan, IL, who is blind, who wrote: The ADA has allowed me to receive my bank statements in braille. This might seem like a small victory to some. Obviously such people have never been denied the ability to read something so personal as a bank statement. I heard from a man in Greenbelt, MD, just outside Washington, DC, who is deaf. I will quote him. He said: When I turn on the TV in the morning, I can watch captions and public service announcements because of the ADA. When I go to work and make phone calls, I use the telecommunication relay services enacted by the ADA. In the afternoon I go to the doctor's office and am able to communicate with my doctor because the ADA has required the presence of a sign language interpreter. After the doctor's office, I decide to go shopping and am able to find a TTY (as required by the ADA) in the mall to call my family and let them know that I will be a bit late in arriving home. . . . In short, the ADA has had a major impact on almost every facet of my life. I heard from a man in Berkeley, CA, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. He said: The ADA has made me able to live independently. I can now get into most every restaurant, movie theater or public place. The ADA has put me on a level playing ground with the rest of society. I realize that if I had been born any other time before I was, I would not be able to lead the life I do. I am going back to school in the fall. I hope to educate people by either being a teacher or a lawyer. I do not think that this would have been possible without the ADA. These are only a few of the many stories we are receiving. I encourage others to send in their stories, again, to create a historical record of the profound impact the ADA has had on the daily lives of people with disabilities, their families and friends, and every American. I encourage everyone to share their stories, their family stories, about how the ADA has improved their lives. For example, I would like to have stories about how the ADA has eliminated segregation in education and health care and the workplace, how the ADA has increased the accessibility of schools and colleges and government and the workplace for people with disabilities. I would like to hear stories about how the ADA has made it possible for people with and without disabilities to enjoy the smaller things that many of us take for granted--going out to a birthday party dinner as a family, going to a movie with a friend, a loved one, or a family member, going to a museum with friends on a Sunday afternoon, or just plain going out to the grocery store to shop for groceries. The ADA has improved people's lives. I need stories that show how the ADA has improved people's lives in any other way, maybe some I have not even thought about. We will share these stories to show how the ADA has benefited people with disabilities and how it has benefited all of American society--by integrating and pulling people from all walks of life into every facet of our lives in America: in education, in the workplace, travel and transportation, and government services. Again, during this time of debate on the estate tax bill, and what we are going to do to help some of the richest people in America, I want to take this time to let people know there are a lot of Americans out there who, because of what we did 10 years ago in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act, are leading fuller, richer, more independent lives. We celebrate that this year on the 10th anniversary on July 26. I ask everyone to help build this record of the ADA successes, again, by sending their stories either by e-mail, at adastories@harkin.senate.gov, or ``A Day in the Life of the ADA,'' c/o Senator Tom Harkin, 731 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. By doing this, we will build a historical record. We will show how the ADA has indeed made us a better country, how the ADA has made it possible for people from all walks of life, regardless of their disability, to work, to travel, to enjoy their families and friends. This is what we ought to be talking about in the Senate. This is what America is about, not about helping the few at the top who already have too much but by helping those who have been discriminated against for so many years, shoved into nursing homes, into dark corners, discriminated against in every aspect of their lives, people with disabilities, and how we as a society came together 10 years ago, Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan fashion to say we are going to end this kind of discrimination once and for all. That was one of the great bipartisan victories I have seen in my 24 years in the Congress. These are the kinds of things we ought to be debating and doing. I take this time to encourage these stories to be sent in, so when July 26 rolls around and we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we will have personal stories about how it has helped people from all over the country.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cary Cascino, an intern on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment to correct an absurdity in our application of important secrecy policies. This issue would be a laughable example of bureaucratic intransigence except that it is harming workers who may have gotten sick from working on our nuclear weapons. I'm sure that by now all my colleagues are aware that many of our citizens were exposed to radioactive and other hazardous materials at nuclear weapons production plants in the United States. While working to protect our national security, workers at places like Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee were subjected to severe hazards, sometimes without their knowledge or consent. We recently passed an amendment to provide compensation to some of those who became seriously ill because of their dangerous work at nuclear weapons plants. The dangers at these plants thrived in the darkness of government secrecy. Public oversight was especially weak at a factory for assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown, Iowa. I first found out about the nuclear weapons work there from a constituent letter from a former worker, Robert Anderson. He was concerned that his non-Hodgkins lymphoma was caused by exposures at the plant. But when I asked the Department of Energy about the plant, at first they denied that any nuclear weapons work took place there. The constituent's story was only confirmed when my staff saw a promotional video from the contractor at the site that mentioned the nuclear weapons work. The nuclear weapons production plants were run not by the Defense Department but by the Atomic Energy Commission, which has since been made part of the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has since acknowledged what happened, and is now actively trying to help the current and former workers in Iowa and elsewhere by reviewing records, helping them get medical testing and care, and seeking compensation. I was pleased this past January to host Energy Secretary Richardson at a meeting with former workers and community members near the plant. The Department specifically acknowledges that the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant assembled and disassembled nuclear weapons from 1947- 1975. And their work has helped uncover potential health concerns at the plant, such as explosions around depleted uranium that created clouds of radioactive dust, and workers' exposure to high explosives that literally turned their skin yellow. But at the Iowa nuclear weapons plant the Defense Department was inseparably intertwined with the AEC. The AEC operations were located on the site of an Army ammunition plant. The workers at both sides of the plant actually worked for the same contractor, workers often switched between the plant parts, and workers on both sides of the plant were even exposed to many of the same hazardous materials, including beryllium and depleted uranium. Thus former workers at the plant do not always clearly distinguish the Army from the AEC. And while the Department of Energy is investigating what happened and seeking solutions, the Army is stuck, still mired in a nonsensical policy. It is the policy of the Department of Defense to ``neither confirm nor deny'' the presence of nuclear weapons at any place at any time. They could not admit that nuclear weapons were assembled in Iowa without admitting that there were nuclear weapons in Iowa. So they write vaguely about ``AEC activities,'' but don't say what those activities were. There have been no nuclear weapons at the Iowa site since 1975, but it's well known that weapons were there before that. The DOE says the weapons were there. A promotional video of the Army contractor at the site even says the weapons were there. But the Army can't say it. This makes the Army look ridiculous. But worse, it sends the wrong signal to the former workers. These workers swore oaths never to reveal what they did at the plant. And many of them are still reluctant to talk. They are worried that their cancers or other health problems were caused by their work at the plant. But they feel that they can't even tell their doctors or site cleanup crews about the materials they worked with or the tasks they did. They don't want to violate the oaths of secrecy they took. One worker at the Iowa plant said recently, ``There's still stuff buried out there that we don't know where it is. And we know people who do know, but they will not say anything yet because they are still afraid of repercussions.'' Instead of helping those workers speak out, the Army is forced to share their silence. And Mr. President, to make the position even more indefensible for my workers in Iowa, the Pentagon is not even consistently applying the ``neither confirm nor deny,'' or ``NCND,'' policy. A document recently released by the Pentagon stated that the U.S. had nuclear weapons in Alaska, Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, the Johnston Islands, Midway, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, and West Germany. After the document was released, a Department spokesman said on television that the U.S. never had nuclear weapons in Iceland. Why can the Pentagon talk about nuclear weapons in Iceland but not in Iowa? Mr. President, for the health of our workers, it's time for the Pentagon to come clean. No one is more concerned with keeping real nuclear secrets than I am. But the Pentagon must not hide behind inconsistent policies when workers' lives may be at risk. This amendment is narrowly targeted to require the Defense Department and Energy Department to review their classification and secrecy policies and change them if they prevent or discourage workers at nuclear weapons facilities from discussing possible exposures with their health care providers. The amendment specifically recognizes that this must be done within national security constraints. It also directs the Departments to contact people who may have been exposed to radioactive or hazardous substances at former nuclear weapons facilities, including the Iowa plant. The Department is to notify them of any exposures and of how they can discuss the exposures with their health care providers and other appropriate officials without violating secrecy oaths or policies. I hope all my colleagues will support this common-sense change for government consistency and worker health. Amendments Nos. 3816 and 3817

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Pension Participant Advocacy Act.'' A similar measure is being introduced by Congressman Rob Andrews in the House. It is no secret that the elderly population in America is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 1996, about one in every eight Americans was age 65 or older--that amounts to 33.9 million Americans. That number is expected to double by 2030. Generally, people work for three main benefits, their salary or wages, their health care and their pensions. Of the three, most people tend to focus least on their pensions, at least till they near retirement. But, pensions are not only very important, they are highly variable in their generosity. Ideally, retirement is a three-legged stool. One leg is Social Security. It is run by the federal government. Almost all employees and their employers are required to pay into Social Security. Appropriately, there is a great deal of legislative concern about Social Security, the only funds available to many retirees. Another leg is regular personal savings generally outside of Congress' purview. And, the third is pensions. Millions receive pension benefits and unfortunately millions of others do not. In the United States, there is no mandatory requirement that an employer provide a pension plan. But, the federal and state governments offer very significant tax benefits to both companies and individuals to entice them to save in a dedicated way for retirement. Ensuring a secure retirement for all Americans is more than just a goal. It's a fiscal necessity. We know from experience that a strong pension system drastically eases the demands on our social safety net. So, year after year, our government invests a large chunk of taxpayer money, revenues not collected, to promote pensions. But while the Federal government has invested huge sums by forgiving and deferring taxes to entice investments in pensions, there has been limited review of how well the system is treating average workers and retirees. But, unfortunately, there are not comparably large and sophisticated groups who speak for average workers. Another problem is the very structure of the federal pension bureaucracy. Nobody has the assigned job of generally looking out for the pension participant. Yes, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation does provide benefits to participants when their plans go bankrupt. The Treasury and the IRS have the responsibility to make sure that the pension laws in the Tax Code are fairly followed. But that is not their focus. The Department of Labor has considerable pension responsibility. But, their first focus is on the proper management of pension plans' funds. And, the needs of the participants are sometimes in conflict with the financial health of pension plans. In recent years, the Congress has funded programs where pension participants, employees or retirees, can ask some basic questions. But, there is a lack of any systematic effort to uncover unfortunate or abusive practices. Let's look at two pension problems I have recently tried to resolve. Mr. President, as I wrote to the Department of Labor and Treasury this past January, lump sum payments continue to deplete Americans' pension payments by up to 50% with very little disclosure. Employers give new retirees a sheet of paper with two numbers on it--a small, monthly amount and a large, lump sum payment. Imagine getting that piece of paper. Which one would you take? Despite our disclosure law, many employers will not tell you that the larger number actually equals half the value of the smaller number over time. This has been going on for years, and who has spoken up for the participants? The Departments of Labor and Treasury took four months to respond to my letter. If that is the kind of response a Senate office gets, where can pension participants turn when their livelihood depends upon getting answers? Let me tell you the story of Paul Schroeder, a 44-year old engineer who has worked for Ispat Inland, Inc, an East Chicago steel company, for 19 years. When the company converted to a cash balance plan, Paul calculated that his benefits would level off for as long as 13 years. The company would be putting no money into his pension for over a decade. Meanwhile, new workers at the company would get added pension benefits with each pay check. This is called the ``wear away'' system. It is the period in which the cash balance benefit catches up to the value of the old plan benefit. Apparently, this practice is legal because of one sentence that was quietly inserted into an unrelated Treasury regulation just before it was approved in 1991. The EEOC is just now undergoing a detailed study to see if these plans violate age discrimination laws. After almost a decade of older employees having their pension assets frozen indefinitely, I ask you: who advocated on their behalf? I only learned about this issue from a group of IBM employees who spent months clamoring to get our attention here in Congress. Those employees told their story to anyone who would listen. But when pension proposals don't affect the well-connected, who speaks for the participants? I have introduced legislation that has received 47 votes in the Senate to provide for payments and I will try to pass it again. But, we should not need to pass a new law. The existing laws against age discrimination should have clicked in. For years, nobody was looking. The bottom line is that no government agency is really looking out for the interests of pensioners. There are a few private organizations that are desperately trying to protect pension rights. But they're underfunded, scattered around the country, and easily overpowered by the better funded, better organized groups. That is why I am proposing legislation to create an office whose specific function is to advocate for the rights of pensioner participants, both when they are employees and when they are retired. Our nation's seniors depend on their pensions to keep them afloat in retirement, and Social Security was never meant to do it alone. As the elderly population grows, it is in our nation's economic interest to ensure that pension legislation focuses on the best interests of participants. Mr. President, The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: Actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants. Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants. Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees, Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions. And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans. Mr. President, we have a strong economy. But we also have an obligation to save a place at the table for those who made it strong. Our nation's pensioners deserve a say in the policies that determine their livelihood. They deserve the right to have their interests represented. In the last 25 years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA has been extremely successful, but it has created a complex web of pension law that gives authority to multiple agencies with no central place people can turn to for help. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and the pensioners who don't have the time or the resources to navigate the web of pension authority are weeded out. We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Pension Participant Advocacy Act.'' A similar measure is being introduced by Congressman Rob Andrews in the House. It is no secret that the elderly population in America is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 1996, about one in every eight Americans was age 65 or older--that amounts to 33.9 million Americans. That number is expected to double by 2030. Generally, people work for three main benefits, their salary or wages, their health care and their pensions. Of the three, most people tend to focus least on their pensions, at least till they near retirement. But, pensions are not only very important, they are highly variable in their generosity. Ideally, retirement is a three-legged stool. One leg is Social Security. It is run by the federal government. Almost all employees and their employers are required to pay into Social Security. Appropriately, there is a great deal of legislative concern about Social Security, the only funds available to many retirees. Another leg is regular personal savings generally outside of Congress' purview. And, the third is pensions. Millions receive pension benefits and unfortunately millions of others do not. In the United States, there is no mandatory requirement that an employer provide a pension plan. But, the federal and state governments offer very significant tax benefits to both companies and individuals to entice them to save in a dedicated way for retirement. Ensuring a secure retirement for all Americans is more than just a goal. It's a fiscal necessity. We know from experience that a strong pension system drastically eases the demands on our social safety net. So, year after year, our government invests a large chunk of taxpayer money, revenues not collected, to promote pensions. But while the Federal government has invested huge sums by forgiving and deferring taxes to entice investments in pensions, there has been limited review of how well the system is treating average workers and retirees. But, unfortunately, there are not comparably large and sophisticated groups who speak for average workers. Another problem is the very structure of the federal pension bureaucracy. Nobody has the assigned job of generally looking out for the pension participant. Yes, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation does provide benefits to participants when their plans go bankrupt. The Treasury and the IRS have the responsibility to make sure that the pension laws in the Tax Code are fairly followed. But that is not their focus. The Department of Labor has considerable pension responsibility. But, their first focus is on the proper management of pension plans' funds. And, the needs of the participants are sometimes in conflict with the financial health of pension plans. In recent years, the Congress has funded programs where pension participants, employees or retirees, can ask some basic questions. But, there is a lack of any systematic effort to uncover unfortunate or abusive practices. Let's look at two pension problems I have recently tried to resolve. Mr. President, as I wrote to the Department of Labor and Treasury this past January, lump sum payments continue to deplete Americans' pension payments by up to 50% with very little disclosure. Employers give new retirees a sheet of paper with two numbers on it--a small, monthly amount and a large, lump sum payment. Imagine getting that piece of paper. Which one would you take? Despite our disclosure law, many employers will not tell you that the larger number actually equals half the value of the smaller number over time. This has been going on for years, and who has spoken up for the participants? The Departments of Labor and Treasury took four months to respond to my letter. If that is the kind of response a Senate office gets, where can pension participants turn when their livelihood depends upon getting answers? Let me tell you the story of Paul Schroeder, a 44-year old engineer who has worked for Ispat Inland, Inc, an East Chicago steel company, for 19 years. When the company converted to a cash balance plan, Paul calculated that his benefits would level off for as long as 13 years. The company would be putting no money into his pension for over a decade. Meanwhile, new workers at the company would get added pension benefits with each pay check. This is called the ``wear away'' system. It is the period in which the cash balance benefit catches up to the value of the old plan benefit. Apparently, this practice is legal because of one sentence that was quietly inserted into an unrelated Treasury regulation just before it was approved in 1991. The EEOC is just now undergoing a detailed study to see if these plans violate age discrimination laws. After almost a decade of older employees having their pension assets frozen indefinitely, I ask you: who advocated on their behalf? I only learned about this issue from a group of IBM employees who spent months clamoring to get our attention here in Congress. Those employees told their story to anyone who would listen. But when pension proposals don't affect the well-connected, who speaks for the participants? I have introduced legislation that has received 47 votes in the Senate to provide for payments and I will try to pass it again. But, we should not need to pass a new law. The existing laws against age discrimination should have clicked in. For years, nobody was looking. The bottom line is that no government agency is really looking out for the interests of pensioners. There are a few private organizations that are desperately trying to protect pension rights. But they're underfunded, scattered around the country, and easily overpowered by the better funded, better organized groups. That is why I am proposing legislation to create an office whose specific function is to advocate for the rights of pensioner participants, both when they are employees and when they are retired. Our nation's seniors depend on their pensions to keep them afloat in retirement, and Social Security was never meant to do it alone. As the elderly population grows, it is in our nation's economic interest to ensure that pension legislation focuses on the best interests of participants. Mr. President, The Office of Pension Participant Advocacy created in this bill would: Actively seek out information and suggestions on pension policies and on Federal agencies which affect pension participants. Evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies, businesses and industry to assist pension participants. Identify significant problems faced by employees and retirees, Make annual recommendations documenting significant pension problems and recommending legislative and regulatory solutions. And examine existing pension plans and determine the extent to which current law serves pensioners in those plans. Mr. President, we have a strong economy. But we also have an obligation to save a place at the table for those who made it strong. Our nation's pensioners deserve a say in the policies that determine their livelihood. They deserve the right to have their interests represented. In the last 25 years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA has been extremely successful, but it has created a complex web of pension law that gives authority to multiple agencies with no central place people can turn to for help. Time and time again, the needs of pension participants are ignored, and the pensioners who don't have the time or the resources to navigate the web of pension authority are weeded out. We need one central place where pension participants can turn to when problems arise. We need one place in government whose sole obligation is to look out for the general pension interests of employees and retirees concerning their pensions. We need an office that will be an advocate for pension participants. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on the Friday before the July 4 recess, the Senate passed the military construction appropriations bill, which included the supplemental spending package, by voice vote. Although there were a number of meritorious items in that bill, if there had been an up or down vote, I would have voted against it for a number of reasons. I was extremely disappointed in the Conferees' decision to drop the $5 million in emergency methamphetamine cleanup funds from the supplemental package. There was strong support for this provision from both Democrats and Republicans. And it was included in both the House and Senate supplemental packages. So, it doesn't make sense why it was suddenly dropped--especially when we're talking about dangerous chemical sites that are left exposed in our local communities. Without this provision, the bill provides hundreds of millions to help a foreign country fight a drug war, but turns a blind eye to one of the biggest drug problems right in our own back yards. That is unacceptable. Our failure to fund the cleanup of these labs is all the more disappointing because this bill is bloated with pork. There is $700 million here for the Coast Guard alone, including $45 million for a C- 37A aircraft for the Coast Guard. The C-37 is a Gulfstream V executive jet. It's not even your average corporate jet, but one of the most expensive, top-of-the-line crafts Why should the American taxpayers pay $45 million so the Coast Guard officers can fly in luxury, when the military has trouble keeping its planes aloft because they lack spare parts? There is a drug crisis in this country and an immediate need for funds for peacekeeping operations, but that's no reason to buy luxury jets in an emergency spending bill. Mr. President, without the meth funding, states and local communities will have to bear the burden of cleaning up these highly toxic sites that are found every day in Iowa and throughout the Midwest, West and Southwest. In recent years, the Drug Enforcement Agency has provided critical financial assistance to help clean up these dangerous sites, which can cost thousands of dollars each. Unfortunately, in March, the DEA ran out of funds to provide methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance to state and local law enforcement. That's because last year, this funding was cut in half while the number of meth labs found and confiscated has been growing. In late May, the Administration shifted $5 million in funds from other Department of Justice Accounts to pay for emergency meth lab cleanup. And I believe that will help reimburse these states for the costs they have incurred since the DEA ran out of money. My state of Iowa has already paid some $300,000 of its own pocket for cleanup since March. However, we've got months to go before the new fiscal year--and the number of meth labs being found and confiscated are still on the rise. My $5 million provision in this emergency spending package would have provided enough money to pay for costly meth lab cleanup without forcing states to take money out of their other tight law enforcement budgets. If we can find the money to fight drugs in Colombia, we should be able to find the money to fight drugs in our own backyard. We should not risk exposing these dangerous meth sites to our communities. So I urge the Senate to support adding the $5 million in emergency meth cleanup funds to the FY 2001 Foreign Operations spending bill or another appropriations vehicle. It is unfair to force our state and local communities to shoulder this financial burden alone.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I agree wholeheartedly with you on the importance of ensuring that all students are exposed to challenging courses that lead them on a positive track towards further education, and that teach critical skills that can be practically applied even if the student does not continue their education immediately. While it is certainly just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to strengthening the academic offerings and outcomes for all students, including disadvantaged students, the AP program is something I think we should all be able to agree on supporting.

Mr. HARKIN. I am pleased to help the Senator from New York and his colleagues from the other affected states and the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARKIN. As a Senator from Iowa, I understand quite well the challenges to access to care posed in rural states.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his kind words and would be happy to engage in a colloquy with him.