Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy and others for getting this time to talk about the bankruptcy bill. I must at the outset admit that due to the press of business around here, and I am not on that committee that formulated this bill, I had not really looked at the bankruptcy portions of it in depth. A lot of people I admire and have respect for have supported the bill. I supported a number of amendments. When the bill finally passed, I had some qualms about it. I voted against it. But I had not really delved into it in very much depth until a week ago, last week, when Time magazine came out with one of the longest stories I have ever seen Time magazine do. It has been mentioned by the previous two speakers, a story called ``Soaked By Congress.'' It is 12 pages or more long. I read it. When I read it, some memories started coming back to me of my days when I was a legal aid lawyer before coming to Congress. I was thinking about the people we represented at the low end of the economic spectrum who could not afford to get another attorney from a private law firm, and the people we took through bankruptcy. These were people at wit's end. I remember them. Often it was a woman with a couple of children, her husband took off, there was illness in the family, she racked up a lot of bills, and she had nowhere to go. At that time in Iowa, we were also debating a bill in the Iowa Legislature to limit the amount of interest that could be charged on a credit card. The Iowa Legislature in fact at that time passed a limit of 15 percent. It did not hurt the State at all. I remembered that, reading this article. When you heard the debate out here on the bankruptcy bill, you would think these were people out living high on the hog, going to the best restaurants, taking foreign vacations, driving Mercedes Benz cars and BMWs, they have beautiful homes and stuff, and all of a sudden they decide they have been living the life of Riley and they do not want to pay their dues, so they go into bankruptcy court. That is the image of the average person filing bankruptcy that came out here on the Senate floor during that debate. That is a very bad misrepresentation. As the Time magazine article pointed out, the median characteristics of a person discharging chapter 7 bankruptcy: Gross income, $22,800-- gross; reported expenses, $20,592; total debt, $42,000, of which miscellaneous debt--medical bills is about $10,000; unsecured debt, credit card, about $23,000; and secured debt, a car, about $9,000. Another thing I remembered from my days as a legal aid lawyer: Most of the people going into bankruptcy were women. It has not changed. As the Time magazine article points out, 497,000 single women filed for bankruptcy last year compared to only single 367,000 men. What are the reasons? Because of a job loss, 51 percent; 46 percent because of medical reasons; 19 percent because of a family breakup. The reason that adds up to more than 100 percent is that people said: I lost my job and my family broke up. That is why most people are going into bankruptcy court today, not because they have been living high on the hog and they are out there trying to get away. We heard statements made on the floor that bankruptcy is not as shameful as it used to be. I beg to differ. Most of the people who go into bankruptcy court are embarrassed, they are ashamed. I remember them from my days as a legal aid lawyer. They fell on hard times, the interest charges keep piling up and piling up, and they could never get ahead of it. They have kids to care for, and they have expenses they have to keep up just to take care of their families. That is who is going into bankruptcy court. It is not because of living high on the hog. The real deviousness of the expected final version of the bill, what is really bad, is, for example, as Time magazine pointed out, an individual who had made millions of dollars sort of scamming the system on investments--Villa, his name is. James Villa is a 42-year-old one- time stockholder who lives in a $1.4 million home in Boca Raton. They contrasted him to 73-year-old Allen Smith, a retired autoworker with throat cancer who lives in an $80,000 home in Wilmington, DE. They go through the whole story. I do not have the time. You can read it. But Villa profited handsomely, he bought Ferraris, he bought a $22,000 Rolex watch for his wife, a 3-carat $44,000 wedding ring, $9,000 diamond earrings. In October 1988, Massachusetts securities authorities ruled he had been engaging in fraudulent and unethical practices. They revoked their broker-dealer registration. He packs up, moves to Florida, takes his money, and buys this huge $1.4 million house. Guess what. It is beyond the reach of his creditors thanks to the homestead exemption in Florida. How about 73-year-old Allen Smith of Wilmington, DE? He served in World War II, worked hard all his life as an auto mechanic, and, guess what. He lost his job, then his world started falling apart, and now he has cancer. He has filed chapter 13, and now they can take his house away from him. We stopped that abuse in the Senate version of the bill. But, unfortunately, I am told that the loophole filled provision in the House that will allow this practice to continue is likely to be in the final measure. This bill is bad, it is getting worse.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will speak after the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to, first of all, support enthusiastically the Trade and Development Act of 2000 known as the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I thank Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan, and the staffs for their hard work to retain the amendment I offered on child labor. This is an important piece of legislation not only for the trade benefits it promises to African and Caribbean countries, but for the benefits it promises to another important and often neglected group, the world's children. This bill includes a provision I introduced last year in the form of an amendment when we first considered this trade measure. As many of you will recall, my amendment, cosponsored by Senators Helms and Wellstone, sought to ensure that beneficiaries of U.S. trade preferences fulfill their commitments to eliminate the use of abusive and exploitative child labor. My amendment passed the Senate by a resounding vote of 96-0. The provision contained in this conference report is very simple and straightforward. It builds on the international consensus that came out of the ILO conference in Geneva last June in which the delegates unanimously adopted the Convention to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor. This provision simply states that in order to be eligible for the trade benefits in this bill, the Generalized System of Preferences, the Caribbean Basin Initiatives, the African Trade Preferences, a country must implement its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor as established by ILO Convention 182 for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor--it is that simple. ILO Convention 182 defines the worst forms of child labor as all forms of slavery, debt bondage, forced or compulsory labor, the sale or trafficking of children, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, child prostitution, children producing or trafficking in narcotic drugs, or any other work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of the children. This chart illustrates the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, including child slavery, bondage, prostitution, use of children in pornography, trafficking in children, forced recruitment in armed conflict, recruiting children in the production or sale of narcotics, and hazardous work. These are all the items that are covered in the bill before us. For the first time in history, the world will speak with one voice in opposition to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from across the political, economic, and religious spectrum--from Jews to Muslims, from Buddhists to Christians--came together to proclaim unequivocally that abusive and exploitative child labor is a practice that will not be tolerated and must be abolished. Those are the exact words from the convention. So after ILO Convention 182 was adopted unanimously, gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is an acceptable practice because of a country's economic circumstances; gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is acceptable because of cultural traditions; and gone is the argument that this form of child labor is a necessary evil on the road to economic development. When this convention was adopted and approved, the United States and the international community as a whole laid those arguments to rest and laid the groundwork to begin the process of ending the scourge of abusive and exploitative child labor. Additionally, for the first time in history, the U.S. tripartite group of the ILO, which consists of representatives from government, business, and labor, unanimously agreed on the final version of the convention. This is the first time in history this has happened. For the first time ever in our history, the legislation we have before us--the African trade bill--will codify in U.S. trade law a simple notion: If you want the trade benefits outlined in this bill, you must implement commitments on abusive and exploitative child labor into which your country has freely entered. Let me be clear. What I mean by abusive and exploitative child labor is not a kid helping on the family farm. It is not a kid doing work after school. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth. I bet you probably did too, Mr. President, as all of us did. That is not what we are speaking about. The Convention the ILO adopted last year deals with children chained to looms, who handle dangerous chemicals, ingest metal dust, are forced to sell illegal drugs, are forced into child prostitution, are forced into armed conflict, are forced to work in factories where furnace temperatures exceed 1,500 degrees. It deals with children who are forced to work to pay off their parents' debts in a form of bondage that deserves to be called what it is, outright slavery. According to the ILO, Latin America and the Caribbean has about 17 million children doing this type of work, Africa has about 80 million children, Asia has about 153 million, and there are about a half million in Oceania. That totals about 250 million children worldwide who are working--most full time. Millions of these kids are under 10 years of age. Some are as young as 6 or 7. Can you imagine your first-grade son or daughter, or your first-grade grandson or granddaughter, working 12 to 14 hours a day in horrific conditions making just pennies a day, if anything? Can anyone say this is acceptable for any child anywhere in the world? These children are forced to work many times with no protective equipment. They endure long hours, as I said, for little or no pay. They simply work only for the economic gain of others. They are denied an education and the opportunity to grow and to develop. Again, this is in sharp contrast to any kind of a part-time job after school for spending money or to buy the latest CD. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about kids working in the worst conditions you can imagine. I am not talking about teenagers, I am talking about kids under the age of 10. A lot of times, people will say: Well, that is just what you heard. But I have had firsthand experience and exposure to this. About 2 years ago, Rosemary Gutierrez, of my staff, and I traveled to Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh to investigate and look at the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor. We were in Katmandu, Nepal. We had previously been told of a young man who had worked as a child laborer for a number of years. He escaped, and through various and sundry means he became involved actively in working against child labor in his home country of Nepal. Through various contacts, we contacted this young man and asked him if there was any way possible we could get in to see a carpet weaving facility where kids are working. As others told us, the problem is, if you let a factory owner know you are coming to inspect, or to visit, they take all of the kids out the back door. They hide them. They disperse them around. When you get there, there are no kids. They do this all the time. So the only way we could ever get a feel for what was going on was to surreptitiously and under cover try to enter one of these places. That is what my staff person, Rosemary Gutierrez, and I did with this young man from Nepal. We got in an unmarked car. It was on a Sunday evening. He knew about this one plant on the outskirts of town where he knew one of the guards at the gate. He thought he had found out the owner of this factory was going to be gone. He knew the guard at the gate through I don't know what circumstances. He assured us, if he went out there, he would be able to sneak us in so we could see firsthand. Imagine, we are in this unmarked car. My staff person, Rosemary Gutierrez, and another person, about five of us, I think, were cramped in this small, unmarked car. We drive out to this place on the edge of town, darkness has fallen. We walk up to this gate with an armed guard. What is the first thing we see? A sign in both Nepalese and English. I took a picture of it. This is my picture. It says: Child labor under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited. Right there in front of the gate. It is in English and Nepalese. Had we notified this plant owner we were coming, there would not have been one kid in this place. However, we came, the guard spoke with this young Nepalese man and let us through the gate. We walked down a back alley for about 15 yards, took a turn, and there was a building. We went in the door of the building that was all closed up. It is Sunday night about 7 o'clock in the evening. It is dark and wintertime. We walk in the door and here is what we saw. This is only one picture, I have many others. This picture was taken by my staff person. That is me in the picture, I wanted to show proof positive of what was happening. Here are these kids. You cannot see them because the camera flash doesn't go back far. There are dozens of kids working at these looms. It is nighttime and kids are working the looms. Since I had this young Nepalese man with me who spoke Nepalese, they were talking. The kids were very nervous but I talked to this young child and the best we could determine he is 7 years old. We talked to this young girl shown in another picture and determined she was eight or nine years old. Remember, this is in the evening, they have been working all day in this closed building. I didn't know it at the time, but when you make these carpets, all the dust gets in the air; the place is dusty, anyone can see all the fine particles and the children have no protective gear whatever. We saw this firsthand. To finish my story, it turned out the owner was not gone. After we had been there for about 10 minutes, the owner shows up and, of course, he is beside himself. I told him who we were and he asked us--not politely--to get out. Of course, we left--but not until we had the documented proof with photos. As I said, this is only one of many that I have. My staff person and a couple of other people were there to witness the kids, kids taken away from their countryside families. There was a barracks nearby where they live. They eat their meals there, they sleep there, they work here. This is maybe 50 or 100 feet away from the barracks in a compound which they cannot leave. Tell me they are not slaves. They have no right to leave, they have no right to go home, they have no one protecting them. They are kept locked in a compound day and night, forced to work on these looms. Please, someone tell me that this ought to be tolerated in free trade. This legislation before the Senate, the African trade bill, contains this provision that says from now on, no trade preferences to any country that doesn't implement what is already agreed to, implement the provisions of ILO 182. Our goal is not to enact punitive sanctions on our trading partners. We are trying to use trade to help them emerge from poverty. Rather, it is to encourage and persuade them to build on the prosperity that comes with trade and to lift their standards up. Exploitative child labor in other countries does a couple of things. First, it puts competing firms and workers at a disadvantage in the United States and other countries that do not allow child labor. This legislation before the Senate codifies for the first time ever in U.S. trade legislation the requirement that countries who wish to benefit from trade preferences must actually do what they have already committed to do, and that is to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Additionally, the Department of Labor will produce an annual report on what countries are doing in order to live up to their commitments to eliminate child labor. Furthermore, there will be a public hearing annually so that nongovernmental organizations, trade unions, and businesses will have an opportunity to comment. No longer will it be sufficient for a country to be merely ``taking steps'' to address one or more of the internationally recognized core labor standards to be deemed eligible for preferences under GSP or under the African Caribbean Trade Act. Once the President signs this bill into law, a country's efforts to eliminate the worse forms of child labor will be a mandatory consideration for determining eligibility for trade benefits. This is, indeed, an important development. In the past, the U.S. Trade Representative, in its implementation and enforcement of the generalized system of preferences, I believe, has abused the language in the statute calling for taking steps to afford worker rights, including child labor. The USTR has interpreted that as any one gesture made by a country would be enough to satisfy the requirements of the generalized system of preferences. In other words, there is a list of five internationally recognized workers' rights provisions: the right of association; the right to organize and bargain collectively; a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of children; and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. If a country previously had taken a step in any one of those areas, they would get GSP. If they had the right of association but still had children working they could get GSP. This is wrong. Now, after 15 years, we have a universal standard. ILO Convention 182 is a well-defined and internationally accepted standard that will be the criterion used in granting any country U.S. trade benefits. ILO Convention 182 will hold everyone to one real and enforceable standard already agreed to by 174 countries. I believe in free trade. But I also believe in a level playing field. U.S. workers, workers in other countries, cannot compete with slaves. Call it what you want, dress it up with all kinds of fancy words, but these kids are working under slave-like conditions, and they do not have a choice. That is the definition of slavery. When a child is exploited for the economic gain of others, that child loses, their family loses, their country loses, and the world loses. It is bad economics and bad development strategy. Nations that engage in abusive child labor make bad trading partners. A nation cannot achieve prosperity on the backs of its children. There is simply no place in the new global economy for the slave labor of children. Again, I point out, this is the kind of work we are talking about. This is 8-year-old Mohammad Ashraf Irfan, making surgical instruments in Sialkot, Pakistan. He is working with dangerous tools and he is making surgical equipment. If you are going to go into a hospital and have an operation, you are probably going to have one of these used on you, made by an 8-year-old kid with no hope for his future. Here is a young Indian girl carrying construction material. This is the kind of abusive and exploitative child labor we are talking about. Recently, I came across a startling statistic. According to the UNICEF report entitled ``The State of the World's Children, 1999,'' nearly 1 billion people will begin this 21st century unable to read a book or sign their name because they are illiterate. This is a formula for instability, violence, and conflict. Nearly one-sixth of all humanity, 3\1/2\ times the population of the United States, will be functionally illiterate on the eve of the new millennium. That is shocking. And the main reason for this appalling situation is that many of these people who are adults now were forced to work as children instead of attending school. The children making pennies a day and denied an education will never buy a computer or the software for it. They will never purchase a CD or a VCR to play American movies. By allowing abusive and exploitative labor to continue, we not only doom the child to a future of poverty and destitution, we doom future markets for American goods and services. The markets of tomorrow are taking shape today. If we want American goods to be purchased the world over, people not only have to be able to afford them, they have to be educated enough to be able to use them. Some have said labor issues should not be dealt with in trade measures. I think this is wrongheaded thinking. We should be addressing these issues on trade measures. After all, we are ultimately talking about our trade policy. Not long ago, agreements on intellectual property rights were not considered measures to be addressed by trade agreements. In the beginning, just a few years ago, only tariffs and quotas were addressed by GATT because they were the most visible trade-distorting practices. But over the years, GATT evolved to include intellectual property rights and services which have become integral parts of our trade agreements. Now I understand the WTO, the World Trade Organization, will consider rules dealing with foreign direct investment and competition policy to be part of trade agreements. If we can protect a song, if we can protect a CD, certainly we can protect children. We cannot, as a nation, ignore this. In 1993, the Senate put itself on record in opposition to the exploitation of children by passing a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I submitted. In 1994, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, I requested the Department of Labor to begin a series of reports on child labor. These reports now consist of five volumes with a sixth to be released in a few days. They represent the most comprehensive documentation ever assembled by the U.S. Government on this issue. Last year, President Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting the U.S. Government from procuring items made by forced or indentured child labor. I congratulate President Clinton for taking that step. I am also pleased to say that the United States was one of the very first countries to ratify ILO Convention 182. We did it in near record time, and President Clinton signed this. I was there in Seattle at the WTO conference last December. Again, I compliment and commend President Clinton for his bold action in signing this, the U.S. being one of the first countries to sign on to ILO Convention 182. I also compliment and commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Helms, for not only cosponsoring my amendment but also for his work in getting the ILO convention through his committee and through the Senate in record time last year. Chairman Helms did a great service to this effort to eliminate these worst forms of child labor around the world. I commend Chairman Helms for his leadership in this area. I am not just talking about the ratification. I am talking about the standards that were established by this convention that were unanimously accepted in Geneva. There was not one vote against it. As I said, the Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards says the United States already meets the standards set by this convention. Last, some say this is a restraint of trade. Nonsense. We already have laws on our books that prohibit the importation of ivory. We have laws on our books that prohibit the importation of goods made with prison labor. We have laws on our books that prohibit the importation of counterfeit goods that don't respect intellectual property rights such as pirated CDs. Again, if we can protect ivory and pirated CDs, we can protect. I am pleased the United States has taken a major step forward with this trade bill. We are sending a strong message to our trading partners. There is no place in the global economy for countries engaging in abusive and exploitative child labor. I am hopeful my colleagues will support this conference report with an overwhelming vote. I believe this measure will give hundreds of thousands of children hope for a brighter future. As someone who has been working on this issue of abusive and exploitative child labor for over a decade, I cannot help but feel proud the United States has spoken in such a clear and unequivocal voice that engaging children in this type of slave labor will not be tolerated in our trade policy. I yield the floor. textiles and apparel provisions

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, if there is such a thing going on right now, some of us want to speak. If I may say, I happen to be in favor of the African trade bill. I am willing to speak after the vote. I just want to make sure we are allowed to speak on the African trade bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to speak now. But I don't have the floor right now, and I can't get the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Underriner, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this afternoon.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to respond to the Senator from Arkansas. This amendment has nothing to do with title I, but this amendment has to do with class size reduction.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Murray for yielding me this time on the debate of this most important issue, of whether or not our kids are going to learn in a better environment by reducing class size, or whether we are going to go into some opposite direction. I must say this debate on class size sort of reminds me of the movie ``Ground Hog Day.'' We keep having this debate over and over and over again, even though we know what the reality is. We have already had 2 years of funding, and 1 year of the money has gone out. All you have to do is go out and ask the teachers. Just go out to your schools, where they have used the money for class size reduction, and simply ask them: Do you like it? Is it working? That is all you have to do. It is very simple. If you do that, you will find that teachers and principals and superintendents like this. They want our assistance to reduce class sizes. What we did is we set a goal of no more than 18 students in grades 1 through 3. We have already provided funding for the first 2 years. Are we going to stop now and turn the clock back? That is what the Republicans want to do. I must say that I listened to the remarks made by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, when he was talking about this issue. Quite frankly, the more I listened to him, the more I came to realize his argument is not against what we are doing, his argument is against local control because, obviously, it was either the principal or the superintendent who made the decision to float a teacher from class to class to class at 90-minute periods of time. That is certainly not in our legislation. They have the flexibility to do that. I have visited many schools in my State and have talked about reducing class sizes. The teachers, parents, and students are thrilled with the results they are seeing after just 1 year. But instead of my talking about it, let me read what some of my constituents had to say. I visited Starry Elementary School in Marion, IA. I spoke with Reggie Long, a first grade teacher for 30 years. She told me she appreciated the smaller classes. She said: It's nice because I can give individual attention to the kids. We just give them so much academically now. If you don't give them individual help, they can't succeed and we can't succeed as teachers. The superintendent of this school district said: The key to effective teaching is getting to know the students and parents. William Jacobson said that it is easier when teachers have fewer students in their classes. Last year, Angie Borgmeyer, a teacher in Indianola had 27 students in her second grade class. This year she has 21. She said 27 was too many. She said: It's very difficult with that many students. When you're trying to teach them to read and give them basic arithmetic, you need to be able to do it in a small group and give them individual attention. So this program is simple. It is eminently flexible. It is very popular. It is time to stop playing politics with it. We heard about there being problems with applying for it, and the burdensome paperwork. I have here in my hand an application from the Des Moines Independent Community School District, for an application they sent in for class size reduction. It has 1 page, 2 pages, a signature page and a letter. That is burdensome? For that they got $854,693.56 to reduce class sizes. In closing, I will share some comments from students. I thought this was illustrative. I visited the McKinley Elementary School in Des Moines and Mrs. Kloppenborg's second grade class. These kids already know what is going on. I thought I would bring these. I will leave them on my desk. These are pretty pictures. Last year there were 34 students in each second grade classroom. This year, they have about 23. So this is what the second grade kids were saying about how they felt about their new class size. I am going to read just some of the letters they wrote. They drew these wonderful pictures. This one by Alicia says: I can spend more time with the teacher. Leydy says: I can learn more about reading in a small group. Daniel says: We learn more and get better grades. He has a great picture. There is a kid in a desk saying, ``Hi, Senator Harkin.'' I guess that is me saying hi because I have a necktie on. There is a kid in front of the teacher's desk and he is kneeling-- it looks like with a report card. If I could, I would tell him it didn't work for me in the old days, and it is not going to work for him today, either. Here is another one, but there is no name on this. It says: I can make friends. Another one says: We have more space to do things like reading. It is a nice picture of the bookshelves with all the books on there. This one by Jessica says: I can learn more because the teacher can help me. This next one says: I can learn more because I get more help. He drew a picture of his hand on here. If you look at all these, every kid they draw is smiling. Every kid is smiling. So, you see, these kids--and I visited this class--they know it. They can sense it. They feel it. They have more space and more time with the teacher. They get more individual help, and the kids love it. When I was there, a few parents came over to the school. What they said to me was amazing. ``The difference between my child this year and last year is incredible,'' they said. ``They are getting more work done and learning better and they are happier; they come home happier.'' So, for the life of me, I can't understand what the argument is on the other side against our involvement in sending money out, no strings attached, with a lot of flexibility for teacher training. We have districts in Iowa that got the waiver because they already had class size reduction; they had reduced classes down to about 20, close to 18. They applied and got a waiver for teacher training. That is precisely what the Murray amendment does. So it seems to me all of the arguments on the other side just boils down to politics. For some reason--perhaps because this was started under a Democratic administration, or perhaps because the amendments were offered by a Democrat--they are opposed to it. That should not be the way it is around here. It should be judged on the merits. We know from experience in the field that the merits justify this amendment to reduce class size and make sure our kids get the attention and education they need. I commend Senator Murray, especially, for her long and stalwart support in class size reduction. I must say, Mr. President, around here a lot of times we defer to those who are experts. A lot of times when we have medical issue that come up, we defer to Bill Frist because he is a doctor. I say to my friends, let's defer to a teacher. Senator Patty Murray is a teacher. She was a teacher before she came here. Quite frankly, I think she knows a lot about what we need in public education. So I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, for having the foresight and the intelligence to have Mike Epstein on his staff for all the years he has been here in the Senate. I say to you, Mike, you could not have picked a better person to work for in the Senate. Paul is in the great tradition of those you have worked with before in the Senate. I also want to thank you, Mike, for all of your work in the Senate over all these years. When I heard the other day that you were home battling cancer, I said, it is impossible; I saw him right back here just the other day, in back of the balustrade over here. Many times I would be sitting here when debate would be going on, and I would go over and say, ``Mike, tell me what is happening,'' or ``What is going on here on the floor?'' or ``What is the amendment? What is our strategy?'' Mike would fill me in. I thank you, Mike, for keeping me up to speed as to what was happening on the floor a lot of times. Mostly, I also want to thank you, Mike, for all the times we rode back and forth on the subway cars together. It seems around here that sometimes you just kind of meet certain people at certain times. It is unplanned and it sort of happens. I don't know why, but you and I, Mike, seemed to be on the same schedule to ride the subway. I don't know what the subway ride is, a couple or 3 minutes. There was always time for me to get a 3- minute briefing from you, Mike, on what we were doing and what we were fighting for. It revolved around I think what I would like to say is the liberal cause. If there is one thing I would like to really thank both Mike Epstein and Paul Wellstone for, it is for fighting for the liberal cause. I can't think of anyone who embodies more of what I believe is the real face of liberalism in this country than you, Mike. I think of what President Kennedy once said. I may get the words a little wrong because I am reaching into my memory bank now. But President Kennedy was once asked--I believe when he was running for President--about being a ``liberal,'' whether he was a liberal or not. President Kennedy responded by saying: Well, if by liberal you mean someone who is soft on defense, someone who is not concerned about ethics and morals, someone who doesn't believe in responsibility and accountability--if that is what you mean by liberal, that is not me. But if by liberal you mean someone who cares deeply about the health and the welfare and the happiness of our people, and if by liberal you mean someone who fights for the education of all of our kids, even the most disadvantaged, and if by liberal you mean someone who will fight for the elderly and their rights in our society, if that is what you mean by liberal, then I am one, and I am proud to be one. So, Mike, I think you embody exactly what President Kennedy was talking about. In all the years I have known you, that has really been your mantle. In all the strategies we had here in fighting for legislation, I think you, Mike, really represented those who didn't have a high paid lobbyist pushing for them, such as children in poverty, working parents who needed some help, and even my people living in rural areas--a lot of times you helped them. I just wanted to take this time to thank you, Mike, for always fighting for what I believe is in the best traditions of liberalism in this country. It is the liberal attitude that I believe makes us more compassionate and understanding toward one another, and you have embodied that during the entire time I have known you for all these years. Again, I thank you for that. You have been a great person, a remarkable person. For as long as I am here, I am always going to turn back to the balustrade and look for Mike Epstein to tell me what is going on and what our strategy is and to keep me focused on what really matters around this place, and that is what we do to enhance the lives of people at the bottom of the ladder. That really is the mark of what we are about and should be about as a Senate. Mike, I thank you, and I thank Paul for getting us together this morning to pay tribute to you. I know you are struggling right now, and I just want you to know that you are always in my thoughts and you are always in my prayers. I can just tell you that all the things you have fought for and believed in so strongly in the Senate, believe me, we are going to keep on going with them. So take care of yourself and just know that we are with you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the issue before us really is whether or not we are going to change gears on education. The Republican bill changes gears in reverse. It puts us in reverse. The Democratic alternative offered by Senator Daschle puts us in a forward gear and moves us ahead into the 21st century. I want to cover basically one issue that is encompassed in the Democratic alternative. If that alternative is not adopted--I assume by the party-line votes that are being held on education this year it probably will not be--I will be offering an amendment, hopefully tomorrow or the day thereafter, on an issue about which the American people are really concerned when it comes to elementary and secondary education. That is the issue of our crumbling schools and what is going to be done about them. USA Today the other day pointed out that 89 percent of the American people ranked education as the most important issue. That is why this debate is so important and why the elementary and secondary education bill is so important. When you talk to the American people about what their concerns are, they talk about things such as smaller class sizes, better qualified teachers, better paid teachers, better accountability--all the issues we talk about in our alternative. But the one that comes up every single time is the state of our schools, how bad they are and how they are crumbling down around us. Two years ago, in 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers--not a political body--issued a report card on the status of our physical infrastructure in this country: The roads, the bridges, mass transit, aviation, waste water, dams, solid waste, and schools. Schools was the only one to receive an F. It is the worst part of our physical infrastructure in America according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Three out of four, 74 percent, of our schools were built before 1970. Here it is right here; 74 percent were built before 1970. Half our schools were built over 40 years ago. You have to wonder. When the nicest things our kids see as they are growing up are shopping malls, movie theaters, and sports arenas, and the worst things they see are the public schools, you have to wonder what kind of message we are sending to them about the value we really place on their education. We have had, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, since 1994, title XII. That was put in with bipartisan support, I might add, in 1994, to provide for grants to local school districts to repair, rebuild, and modernize their schools. I have been fighting on this issue for 7 years. Finally we had gotten the attention that this was a national problem--not just a local problem, a national problem. It is national because in some of the poorest school districts where they do not have the tax base to raise the local revenues, that is where you have the real problems. So it is a national issue, not just a local issue. It is one where we can help local school districts without being involved in curriculum or taking over local control. This has nothing to do with that. I will tell you this: If you talk to local property taxpayers in any school district, talk about how burdened they are, and ask them if they want another increase in their property taxes to rebuild and modernize their crumbling schools, they will tell you they cannot do it. That is why it is a national problem and needs a national answer. We had title XII and guess what. When we finally got the bill to our committee, title XII had been struck, just done away with. That is what we were faced with--no more title XII, no more authorization to provide grants to schools, while at the same time President Clinton sends the budget down earlier this year and there is $1.3 billion in the President's budget for grants to our local schools to rebuild and modernize. The President requested $1.3 billion, and the Republican bill we have before us strikes the authorization to allow us to do that. So I will tell you, at about this time President Clinton is in Davenport, IA, to continue his push for legislation to modernize our crumbling schools. But the pending bill cuts that effort off at the knees by repealing title XII. The amendment we have before us, the Daschle amendment, reauthorizes and amends title XII. It authorizes $1.3 billion to make grants and zero-interest loans to enable public schools to make urgent repairs, to fix the leaking roofs, repair the electrical wiring, or fix fire code violations. What I am about to tell you has happened in the State of Iowa I am sure is true in almost every State in this Nation. The Iowa State Fire Marshal reported that fires in Iowa schools have increased fivefold over the past several years. Why is that? Because they are old schools. The wiring is old. They are catching on fire. It is true in every State in the country. Here is something else. I say this to my friend from New York. Most people say this cannot be so, but it is so. Twenty-five percent of the schools in New York City are still heated by coal. One out of every four public schools in New York City is heated by coal. Talk about old fashioned. Talk about the need to modernize and upgrade. In closing, we have a lot of needs for elementary and secondary education, but one need that must be met on a national basis is fixing, repairing, and modernizing our crumbling schools. The Daschle amendment does that. That is why it needs to be supported. If the substitute amendment is not adopted, I will be back with an amendment to amend title XII to provide the $1.3 billion President Clinton asked for in his budget. Our local school districts need this national help. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as we enter the 21st century, the American people have their eyes firmly focused on the future, and they know education is the key to that future. This morning's USA Today newspaper reported that of all the issues the American people care about or they want their Presidential candidate speaking about, education is No. 1. Eighty-nine percent rank it as the most important issue in determining their vote for President. That is why this debate is so important. It has been 6 years since we had the elementary and secondary education bill on the floor and I am delighted that we are finally having this debate. I am hopeful it will be a full and open debate with amendments that address the broader issue of education in this country. Yesterday, there was a lot of discussion about the failure of Federal education programs. We heard a lot of talk yesterday about how the achievement gap has widened and U.S. students are near the bottom of international assessments, teachers are not qualified, too many students can't read, and on and on. We heard all of these horror stories yesterday. I wish to state at the outset, first of all, that, like so many of my colleagues, I have traveled around the world. I have visited education systems in other parts of the globe. I wouldn't trade one education system anywhere in the world for the public education system we have in America. I wouldn't trade this public education system we have in America for anything anywhere else in the world because we invest in public education so that every child, regardless of how rich, or how poor, no matter where that child is born or raised, has a chance to fulfill his or her dreams. It is not so in other countries. You might say the math scores are higher here or there. But, then again, in some other education systems they take the brightest kids through testing and put them in mainstream schools. They may take other kids who maybe don't test as well and put them in technical schools. When it comes to some of these international assessments, some countries are only testing the kids who are the brightest. We don't believe in that kind of a structured education system in America. We don't have one set of kids here, another set of kids here, and another set of kids here. We believe in universal education so that every child has the ability to learn, to grow, and to develop. Yet even kids with disabilities have the ability to learn, to grow, and to develop. We have expanded the concept of public education time and time again to include more under that umbrella. When I was a kid growing up and going to public schools, you would never see a kid in a wheelchair in school, or a kid on a respirator, or someone who had a mental disability in a school, or a kid with Down's syndrome, for example. But today it is commonplace. And I say we are a better country because of it. When my daughter was in public grade school recently there were kids in school with disabilities right in the classroom. I used to visit her in the classroom. I thought it was good for the kids with disabilities, and it is good for the kids without disabilities. It brings people together. You won't find that in very many foreign countries. Why don't talk about that as a source of pride in this country, and what we do for all of our kids in this country? Listening to the speakers yesterday you would think we had the worst education system in the world; that it is just the pits. I beg to differ. We have great teachers, we have great schools, and we have great kids. We have come a long way in this country in making sure that universal education is the right for all. Does that mean we don't have problems? Of course, we have problems to fix. Just as we opened the doors with kids with disabilities and said that you can't keep kids out of school, you can't keep kids out of school because of race, you can't keep kids out of school because of sex. Again, I hear these terrible stories about schools. I wonder where the people are coming from who I heard speak so much yesterday. What do they want? Do they want to privatize all of American education? Do they want to have a system of education as some foreign countries have where the brightest kids at an early age when they are tested get put into special schools, and maybe kids who don't have the intellectual capacity of others are put in technical schools? They just learn a trade, and that is all they do. Is that what people want around here? If so, why don't they have the guts to get up and say so if they want our education system to be like some foreign countries, where their national governments, not local school districts control education. After listening to the debate yesterday, you come to the conclusion that the Federal Government is solely responsible for public education in this country, and it is the Federal Government that is solely responsible for the failure of our schools. Let's set the record straight. Right now, of all of the money that goes to elementary and secondary education in America, only 6 percent comes from the Federal Government. That 6 percent of the money that comes to the Federal Government has ruined all of the kids in America, has ruined our schools. Forget that a lot goes for Title I reading and math programs, forget a lot of the Federal help goes to IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and other programs such as that. For some reason, that small amount, 6 percent, has ruined our schools. That is an odd case to make for those arguing that the Federal Government is to blame for this. Second, education is only 2.3 percent of the Federal budget. Out of every $1 the Federal Government spends, only 2.3 cents goes for education. I make the opposite argument. I think it ought to be more than that. I think on a national level we need more of a national commitment to our public schools. Because our investment in public education is so small--only 6 cents out of every dollar--we have to be careful where it goes. First, we ought to make sure every child is educated in modern public schools connected to the Internet. Schools that have the best technology. Second, we must make sure every child has an up-to-date teacher who is an expert in the subjects he or she is teaching. Third, we must make sure every child has a chance to learn and be heard. You cannot do that in overcrowded classrooms. We need to make our class sizes smaller. Fourth, we have to make sure children have a safe place to go during the hours between the end of the school day and the time their parents come home from work. People talk about safety in schools. We are all concerned about safety in schools. However, we need to keep our focus on where the problem is. Schools are one of the safest places for our children, most of the problems happen after they leave school in the afternoon, in the evening, and on weekends. We all decry the tragedy at Columbine, and tragedies at other schools. Those incidents capture our attention; they cry out for some kind of involvement and some kind of a solution. But keep in mind that only 1 percent of the violence done to kids is in school. We need to make sure we have an after school program to help keep these kids safe and secure. Fifth, we have to continue to expand our help to local school districts to help kids with special needs in special education and for Title I reading and math programs so that students can master the basics. Finally, we must demand accountability for our investments. I think this is a clear, comprehensive, and accountable national education agenda. But the pending legislation before the Senate does not establish this clear agenda. In fact, the bill retreats on our national commitment to education. It does not answer the tough questions. It simply says we are going to throw it back to the States; we will not provide any kind of leadership on the national level. Finally, as has been said before by Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, and others, this is the first time this reauthorization is coming to the floor as a partisan bill. The first time since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in the 1960s that we have not had a bipartisan bill on the floor. It came out of committee on a straight party line vote. This bill gets an A for partisanship, but it gets an F for educational progress. The centerpiece is the Straight A block grant. It sends the dollars back to the States for any educational purpose they see fit. As was stated in the committee, one of our Senators, Mr. Gregg on the other side, admitted this could mean private school voucher programs if the State has such a program. In return for the blank check, the State has to show improvements in student achievement after 5 long years. It is a risky proposal and will not guarantee any improvements in education. We heard a lot of talk yesterday about the burden of filling out all these forms that schools have to fill out to get Federal grants. First we are told the Federal grants are not any good. Then we are told it is too burdensome. Do they want to make it easier or cut it out? We don't know the answer to that. I have a Federal Class-Size Reduction Program application from the Marion Independent School District in Marion, IA. This is for class- size reduction. It is one page, two pages, three pages. Three pages is burdensome? Anyone could fill this thing out in no time flat. To hear some people on the other side talk, one would think it necessary to sit down for a whole week and hire consultants to complete this paperwork. This administration, under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, in reinventing government, have simplified and clarified a lot of the processes. To hear some of my colleagues talk about it, you would think we were back 20 or 30 years ago under the Reagan administration, or even before that, when you did have to fill out volumes and volumes of material. Here is the bill, S. 2. We hear the talk on the Republican side about all the mandates, local control, and the reporting requirements. Here is an amendment that takes up a page, section 4304: Disclaimer On Materials Produced, Procured Or Distributed From Funding Authorized By This Act. All materials produced, procured, or distributed, in whole or in part, as a result of Federal funding authorized under this Act shall have printed thereon-- (1) the following statement: ``This material has been printed, procured or distributed, in whole or in part, at the expense of the Federal Government. Any person who objects to the accuracy of the material, to the completeness of the material, or to the representations made within the material, including objections related to this material's characterization or religious beliefs, are encouraged to direct their comments to the Office of the United States Secretary of Education; (2) the complete address of an office designated by the Secretary to receive comments from members of the public. And it goes on. Every 6 months they have to prepare a summary of all of this. And the Republicans are talking about simplifying? This requirement will be burdensome. I want to talk about one issue on which I will offer an amendment, providing authorization for the national effort to modernize and make emergency repairs to our Nation's public schools. The conditions of our schools are well known. In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers--not a political group the last time I checked--did a report card on the Nation's physical infrastructure, covering roads, bridges, mass transit, water, dams, solid waste, hazardous waste, and schools. The only subject to receive an F in their quality in terms of our national infrastructure were our schools. That is from the American Society of Civil Engineers. We know that 74 percent of our schools, three out of four schools, were built before 1970 and they are over 30 years old. The average age is about 42 years right now. I was on the floor when the Senator from Arkansas was discussing the school he visited. The ceiling was falling in, rain was coming in, insulation was peeling off. It looks dismal. He talked about how there was exercise equipment in the school. I don't know about the exercise equipment, but I do know about the infrastructure, and he is right. There are schools like that in Arkansas and Iowa and all across this country. Many of these schools are in low-income areas where they do not have a very large property tax base so they are unable to generate the revenue they need to fix up their schools. This is a national problem, and it requires a national effort and a national solution. It is a national disgrace that the nicest things our kids see as they are growing up are shopping malls, movie theaters, and sports arenas and some of the most run down things they see are the public schools they attend. What kind of message are we sending to our kids about how much we believe in their public education? In 1994, there was a title XII that was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in that reauthorization. I had been instrumental in that, both from the authorizing end and also from the appropriation end, because I have long believed this is a national problem. Just as our roads and our bridges, our dams, and our water systems are all constructed, built, and maintained locally, we still provide a national input into those facilities. I then tried, on the Appropriations Committee, to get money for Title XII. I have not been all that successful, I must admit. I did get a pilot program which is showing that a federal investment in school facilities can make a big difference. A modest federal investment can make school safer by bringing them up to state and local fire codes. A modest federal investment can spur new construction projects as well. Here is that report card that says our schools rate F in infrastructure. We know there are some $268 billion needed to modernize school facilities all over America. We know our local property taxpayers are hard pressed in many areas to increase their property taxes to pay for this. So that is why we need a national effort. But this bill, S. 2--I can hardly lift it, it weighs so much--S. 2, the reauthorization, strikes out title XII. We put it in, in 1994. I remember it was not objected to on the Republican side. It was not objected to on the Democratic side. It had broad support in committee. It had broad support in the Congress. Now, for some reason, 6 years later when we have not even taken the first baby step to help modernize our schools on a national basis, the Republicans have taken it out-- just excised it. I offered an amendment in committee to restore this important program, and I lost on a straight party line vote. In the next day or so, whenever I have the opportunity, I will be offering an amendment to restore title XII. My amendment will reauthorize $1.3 billion to make grants and zero interest loans to enable public schools to make the urgent repairs they need so public schools such as the one talked about by my friend from Arkansas could use that money to fix the leaking roof, repair the electrical wiring, fix fire code violations. From my own State, the Iowa State Fire Marshal reported that fires in Iowa schools have increased fivefold over the past several years, from an average of 20 in the previous decades to over 100 in the 1990s. Why is that? It is because these old schools, 31 percent of them built before World War II, have bad wiring. After all these years, they are getting short-circuits. Maybe they have tried to air-condition; they got a bigger load factor, and they are getting more and more fires all the time in our public schools. This is something you will not believe, but 25 percent, one out of every four public schools in New York City, are still heated by coal. One out of every four public schools in the city of New York is heated by coal. Talk about pre-World War II. I think there is a clear national need to help our school districts improve the condition of their schools for the health, the safety, and the education of our children. I hope the Republicans will do what they did in 1994 and support it again, broadly based, so we can have a national effort to provide funds. The President put $1.3 billion in his budget that would go out under title XII. Yet the Republicans have taken title XII completely out of the bill. So I am hopeful in the next day or two we can put it back in and authorize this money. Having said all that, is everything in this bill absolutely bad? Not by a long shot. There are some really good things in that bill, and I want to talk about one of those. Right now, children, especially little kids, are subject to unprecedented social stresses coming about from the fragmentation of families, drug and alcohol abuse, violence they see every day either in person in the home or on the streets or on television or in movies, child abuse, and of course grinding poverty. In 1988, 12 years ago, the Des Moines, IA, Independent School District recognized the situation and they began a program of expanded counseling services in elementary schools. They called it ``Smoother Sailing,'' and it operates on the simple premise: Get the kids early to prevent problems rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the Des Moines School District more than tripled the number of elementary school counselors to make sure there is at least one well-trained professional guidance counselor in every single elementary school building in the Des Moines School District. In some there is more than one, but no school is without one. It started in 10 elementary schools. Forty-two elementary schools now have this program. The ratio is 1 counselor for every 250 students, as recommended by experts. The national figure for counselors for students in elementary school is one counselor for every 1,000 students--1 counselor for every 1,000 kids. There is no way 1 counselor can get to 1,000 kids. In Des Moines, we went down to 1 for every 250. It is working. It has been a great success. Assessments of fourth- and fifth-grade students show they are better at solving problems, and the teachers tell us there are fewer fights and there is less violence on the playgrounds. It has worked. Smoother Sailing was a model for the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Program, and I am pleased the program is reauthorized in S. 2. We are discussing the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and I am hopeful we can make some changes in S. 2 to reflect our national priorities. I just spoke about one. I also serve on the Appropriations Committee, and my question is: How are we going to fund it? Mr. President, the budget resolution we adopted cuts nondefense discretionary spending by $7 billion. I am working with Senator Specter, chairman of the education appropriations subcommittee, to find the money and do more than talk about these problems. We are going to have a lot of debate on it. The President submitted a budget that I think makes a good start at funding these programs--title I, after school programs, class-size reduction, school modernization, school technology. All of these are vitally important. But where is the money when the budget resolution cut our nondefense discretionary spending by $7 billion? We will have more debate about that in the future. I thought I might give a heads up to my fellow Senators and say, it is all fine to authorize this, but when the crunch comes on money, let's step up to the bar and vote because we may need 60 votes. There will probably be a point of order, and we will need 60 votes. We will see then if Senators really want to invest in public education in this country. It is one thing to authorize it, but then sometime later this year we are going to have to step up and vote the money to solve these problems. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for bringing up these points again. We tend to get into these debates, and we really forget what is at essence here. What is at the essence of our problem is the big disparity, as Jonathan Kozol has pointed out time and time again, between those who happen to be born and live in a wealthy area and those who are born and live in a poor area.

Mr. HARKIN. Is that per student?

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

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator pointed out the disparity in teacher salaries and the amount of money spent per student. It raises in my mind this question, again, of why that is. Why is it? I ask the Senator, where is it in the Constitution of the United States that public education in America is to be funded by property taxes? Why is this so? I asked a rhetorical question. Obviously it is not in the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HARKIN. It should not depend on the roll of the dice of where you were born as to what kind of school you attend.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lynn Kinzer, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her long and strong support for the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Senator from California has been one of the most persistent and enlightened voices in the Senate--indeed, in the country--on protecting a woman's basic right to choose. I follow in her footsteps in many of these issues. The Senator from California has really put her finger on it, the point I was trying to make today. This partial-birth abortion law that the Supreme Court is reviewing today, as well as the legislation before Congress--is just a smokescreen. Its a smokescreen which anti-choice Members and groups are hiding behind in order to get their eventual goal, which is the total repeal and overturn of Roe v. Wade, to take away the essential and basic fundamental rights about which the Senator just spoke. Without Roe v. Wade and without that constitutionally protected right of women to have control over their own reproductive health, many of the things about which the Senator just spoke would be gone. There wouldn't be any right for women in the military, there wouldn't be any right for women in the District of Columbia or anywhere else, to have the kind of health coverage that would protect them in dire need when they need help, when perhaps a pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and they need immediate and very intensive medical help. That was why I wanted to talk about it today. I don't want to interfere in the Supreme Court decision. That is for them to decide over there. What I wanted to point out was that in conjunction with that, here in the Halls of Congress there is a very dangerous game being played out where proponents of so-called partial-birth abortion really have want to overturn the basic right to choose for women. That is why the two of us joined together last fall to offer that amendment. I say this because the Senator and I worked together on this amendment. We offered the amendment in good faith, thinking we were going to get an overwhelming vote of the Senate saying, yes, we support Roe v. Wade. I think both of us were shocked at how close we came.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I appreciate the Senator's very lucid and clear delineation of exactly what is going on here. It was a gag rule in the House. That is what they did. Under their rules, the Republican leadership would not allow a vote on our amendment. Again, I think it is because they don't want their veil of moderation lifted. They want to say this is only about partial birth. It is not, and we know it. It is about Roe v. Wade. Yet they don't want to have their people out there voting on it. I think the American people have a right to know where we stand on this most fundamental right of women in this country. Again, I thank my friend from California for her long and strong leadership on this issue. It is vitally important to all of us in this country that the basic, fundamental, constitutional rights that were enumerated in Roe v. Wade for the women of this country remain, and remain strong, and not be undermined in this body. So I thank the Senator for her strong leadership in this effort.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 51-47; there were a couple of people who were not here.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to depart from the debate on the issue before us, which is an important issue. I appreciate the remarks made by my colleague from North Dakota. I listened intently to what he had to say, and I can understand his deep feelings about this issue. I want to talk about another issue because today, across the street from where we sit in the Halls of the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case involving the so-called partial-birth abortion law of the State of Nebraska. That law, passed by the Nebraska Legislature, is quite similar to the version the Senate and the House have debated over the years. In fact, it is very similar to the one passed by the Senate last October. However, the real issue in the case before the Supreme Court and in the legislation before Congress is not about banning late term abortions. The real issue is about a systematic effort to overturn Roe V. Wade and to criminalize all abortions. The real issue is about whether we trust women, in consultation with their faith and their family, to make this very difficult, personal decision or do we put that trust in politicians? That is what this is really all about. Last October 21, during debate on the so-called partial-birth abortion bill in the Senate, I, along with Senator Boxer, offered a resolution to this so-called partial-birth abortion bill. Our resolution was very simple. It stated that it was the sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and should not be repealed. Let me read for the record the entire text of that resolution because it was very simple and very straightforward. (a) Findings: Congress finds that-- (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law; (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy; and (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade decision. (b) Sense of Congress: It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned. That is the full text of the resolution that I and Senator Boxer offered last October 21. By invalidating the laws that forced many women to seek unsafe, and often deadly back-alley abortions, Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives. It is estimated that as many as 5,000 women a year died from illegal abortions before Roe. Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on which American women have come to rely. It recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health. And very importantly, it provides specific protections for the life and the health of women. So the vote on the Harkin-Boxer amendment last October to finally put the Senate on record about its support for the mainstream Roe decision was very important. It was the first vote directly ever held here on whether the Senate wants to go back to the days of back-alley abortions. Our amendment barely passed, 51-47. Fifty-one said yes, Roe v. Wade was a good decision, it should not be overturned. Forty-seven Senators voted against that resolution, basically saying they did not agree with Roe v. Wade and that it should be overturned. Frankly, I was shocked at how close the vote on our amendment was. In fact, in offering the amendment, I thought: Here is a chance for an overwhelming vote of support by the Senate in confirming the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. But after that close vote, I then realized that the vote really lifted the veil of moderation of antichoice Senators. For so many who were saying, that they support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, they just want to ban partial birth abortion, here was the chance to express that. With 47 votes against Roe v. Wade, the veil has been lifted. Now we know what is the real agenda. The agenda is to criminalize choice, criminalize freedom of choice for women. While the Nation's attention is refocused on the issue of choice with today's Supreme Court case, I also want to shed some light on what has been going on behind the scenes in Congress since the Senate very closely approved our amendment. What would normally happen is that after the Senate passed the bill with our amendment, the House would act on the Senate-passed bill and request a conference with the Senate to work out the differences between the two bodies. Instead, the House of Representatives avoided a vote on our amendment. They took up a clean bill and sent it over here in order to avoid a conference. So it is clear that the Republican leadership in the House does not want to have to take a vote on this issue. In fact, the House has never had a vote on the issue of support for Roe v. Wade. Why else would the House majority take the unusual step of punting the bill back to the Senate for a unanimous consent instead of taking it to conference? It is clear the Republican leadership in the House did not want to have a vote, which would be allowed under the House rules to instruct the House conferees to support my amendment in conference, thus putting the House on record, once and for all, as to whether or not they support Roe v. Wade. Again, the Republican leadership in the House wants to continue to hide their true agenda. They want to hide behind a false cloak of moderation on the issue of choice. Senator Boxer and I have objected to this latest maneuver. Let me be clear. Every time the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, or any other antichoice legislation, comes to the Senate floor, I will offer my amendment, and there will be another vote on the Roe v. Wade resolution. People in the leadership know that. That is why they have not bothered to bring up any of their antichoice legislation since the last vote on October 21. They know I will offer my amendment every single time to lift their veil of moderation. So today I am challenging the House Republican leadership to allow a vote on our amendment. Let's let people know where their representatives stand on the basic issue of choice, the basic issue of Roe v. Wade. Because Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on which American women have come to rely. The Roe v. Wade vote in the Senate should send a wakeup call to all Americans that this policy is in jeopardy. They need to act to maintain it. In this most personal of decisions, we need to trust women, not politicians, to make the choice. That is what this is all about. Whether it is the case in front of the Supreme Court or whether it is the vote in the Senate, the issue is simply this: Do you trust politicians, whether they are in a State government or in the Federal Government, to make this decision for women or do you trust women? People of strong faith and good conscience have very different views on the issue of abortion. I respect both sides on this often divisive issue. I have struggled with it personally myself. Whether or not we agree, we should all work together to find commonsense, common ground steps to reduce the number of abortions and to protect the health and well-being of women and children. That means fully funding maternal and child health programs, fully funding the Women, Infants, and Children's feeding programs, fully funding contraceptive coverage, family planning services, and better adoption options, just to name a few of the policies we ought to be about. But the bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade was an enlightened decision. It is moderate. It puts the basic decisions on reproductive health where it belongs, with the woman and not with the Government. Today, as the Supreme Court, across the street, listens to the arguments on the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law, let us resolve that we are going to maintain a woman's basic right to choose, that we will not let the politicians take it over, that we will not return to the dark days of back-alley abortions and the criminalization of a woman's own right to choose her reproductive health. That is what this issue is about. The women of this country are counting on us to make sure we uphold the decision in Roe v. Wade. We cannot afford to let them down. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 7 years ago we ended a failed economic policy of trickle down economics. It brought ballooning deficits, a quadrupling of the national debt, high interest rates, and low growth. But we made some tough decisions and tough votes. We changed the course of the new economic policies that invested in people and imposed needed fiscal discipline. The results are in: 21 million new jobs, 4 percent unemployment rate, the lowest in 30 years, the fastest growth rate in 30 years, and the lowest crime and welfare rate in 30 years. There is the highest home ownership ever, 108 months of straight economic growth, productivity- breaking records, and inflation outside of energy is tame. Why do we want to change this? Why return to the days of risky tax schemes, the days of trickle down economics, and fiscal irresponsibility? That is exactly what the conference report budget before the Senate does. This budget resolution before the Senate provides $175 billion to tax cuts, skewed to the wealthiest of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office, however, projects $171 billion in non-Social Security surpluses over the next 5 years. Add the higher interest we have to pay on the public debt because we did tax cuts instead of paying down the debt, and what does that add up to? This budget conference report before the Senate means we will have to tap into the Social Security surplus in order to pay for these tax cuts. It is fiscally irresponsible. We ought to take a different course and follow the adage that when times are good, prepare for the future. That means the budget should put the highest priority on paying off the debt, securing Social Security and Medicare for the future. I have said time and time again on this floor, if you want to save Medicare and cut down on Medicare expenses today, invest in medical research. To that end, 3 years ago, the Senate, in a unanimous vote, went on record as saying we ought to double NIH basic medical research in 5 years. Last year, we had a historic increase of $2.3 billion to keep on the track of doubling NIH research in 5 years. This next year would require $2.7 billion. Keep in mind the Senate voted unanimously to double NIH funding. When the budget came out of committee, it was short by $1.6 billion for NIH research. Senator Specter, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health and human services that funds NIH, offered an amendment that I supported to add back the $1.6 billion to medical research. Nine Republicans joined the Democrats, and it passed 54-46. As anyone who has even opened the newspapers lately knows, we are on the verge of many breakthroughs in biomedical research, stem cell research, and the human genome, which is being mapped and will be done shortly. Now we need to push ahead to invest in medical research, to find the causes, the cures, and the preventions for many of the illnesses that cost Medicare so much today. Yet this conference report ignores the bipartisan vote in the Senate. It completely obliterates the $1.6 billion that was added by the Specter amendment. It has been wiped out. Let's bring it to concrete terms. What does it mean? The conference report that took out that $1.6 billion, when spread over the different research being done by NIH, means, for example, that in AIDS research, $179 million less than what we had in the Senate; cancer research is $261 million less than what we had in the Senate; prostate cancer is down $21 million; arthritis is down $24 million; Alzheimer's is $41.8 million less than what we had in the Senate. If the conference report had kept in what we had voted for in the Senate, we would have an additional $261 million for cancer research; we would have an additional $179 million for AIDS research; we would have an additional $111 million for mental health research; we would have an additional $14 million for Parkinson's; we would have an additional $13 million for osteoporosis; we would have an additional $1.9 million for multiple sclerosis; we would have another $24 million for kidney disease; we would have another $38 million to study infant mortality; we would have another $47 million for diabetes research if this budget report has the $1.6 billion added by the Senate. I thought the budget we passed was inadequate before; it is woefully inadequate now. For the life of me, I don't understand why the $1.6 billion was taken out of this critically needed part of meeting our obligations of the future for NIH basic research. There is another point. The Senate resolution had increased Pell grants by $400, bringing them up to $3,700. We have needed to do that over the last 20 years. The purchasing power of Pell grants went down 25 percent. A poor student in college today can spend 25 percent less with the maximum Pell grant than 20 years ago. The education was also dropped in conference. That is deeply, deeply disappointing. This budget needs to be sent back to the drawing board. It targets fiscally irresponsible tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans. It shortchanges the critical investments we need: First, in medical research; and, second, in investment in education to keep our economy and our people healthy and strong. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.