Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan effort to provide more funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As I've said time and again, disability is not a partisan issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities and their families get a fair shake in life. And the 25th anniversary of IDEA is the perfect year to improve the capacity of school districts to meet their responsibilities to children with disabilities. Currently, the State grant program within IDEA receives $5 billion. Estimates by the Congressional Research Service suggest that the program needs to be funded at $15.8 billion each year to meet the targets established in 1975. Our amendment would increase funding for IDEA annually in roughly $2 billion increments over the next five years and would put us on track to meet our goal of 40 percent funding. I know many of you have heard this speech before. Every year I stand on the Senate floor at least once or twice and give a short history lesson around IDEA. Well, this year is no different. In the early seventies, two landmark federal district court cases-- PARC versus Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills versus Board of Education of the District Court of Columbia--established that children with disabilities have a constitutional right to a free appropriate public education. In 1975, in response to these cases, Congress enacted the Education of Handicapped Children Act, the precursor to IDEA--to help states meet their constitutional obligations. Congress enacted PL 94-142 for two reasons. First, to establish a consistent policy of what constitutes compliance with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment with respect to the education of kids with disabilities. And, second, to help States meet their constitutional obligations through federal funding. The Supreme Court reiterated this in Smith versus Robinson: ``[EHA] is a comprehensive scheme set up by Congress to aid the states in complying with their constitutional obligations to provide public education for handicapped children.'' I strongly agree with the policy of this amendment and the infusion of more money into IDEA. A Senator Jeffords has explained, this is a win-win for everyone. Students with disabilities will be more likely to get the public education they have a right to because school districts will have the capacity to provide such an education--without cutting into their general education budgets. However, as much as I agree with the policy of our amendment, I disagree with some of the rhetoric around this issue. As I see it, a mythology has been created around the 40 percent figure. Some people describe it as a ``promise'' or ``pledge'' on the part of the federal government to fund IDEA at 40 percent. Well, the 40 percent figure is simply a funding formula, just like the funding formulas found in lots and lots of other statutes. In 1975, the EHA authorized the maximum award per state as being the number of children served times 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure--known as the APPE. The formula does not guarantee 40 percent of national APPE per disabled child served; rather, it caps IDEA allotments at 40% of national APPE. In other words, the 40 percent figure was a goal, not a commitment. As the then ranking minority member on the House Ed and Labor Committee, Representative Albert Quie, explained: ``I do not know in the subsequent years whether we will appropriate at those [authorized] levels or not. I think what we are doing here is laying out the goal. Ignoring other Federal priorities, we thought it acceptable if funding reaches that level.'' The important point in the Congressman's statement is that we cannot fund IDEA grant programs at the cost of other important federal programs. That is why historically the highest appropriation for special education funding was in FY 1979, when allocations represented 12.5 percent APPE. During the Reagan years, the appropriation went back down. But, over the last five years, as ranking member on the Labor-H Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle to more than double the IDEA appropriation so that we're back up to over 12.5 percent. And, today, we are in an even better position to do the right thing. We are presented with a non-Social Security budget surplus. Our economy is in great shape. We have the opportunity to pay off the public debt. We will continue to protect the Social Security trust fund. And--even better--we can use money from the non-Social Security surplus to ensure that seniors get prescription drugs, school kids benefit from smaller class size, and students with disabilities get the services they have a right to. All of these proposals make more sense than providing wealthy Americans with tax cuts that will eat up the non-Social Security surplus. Last year's Supreme Court decision regarding Garret Frey of Cedar Rapids, Iowa underscores the need for Congress to help school districts with the financial costs of educating children with disabilities. While the excess costs of educating some children with disabilities is minimal, the excess costs of educating other children with disabilities, like Garret, is great. Under our amendment, my home state of Iowa would receive a total increase of over $346 million over the next five years. Of course, lots of places are already doing a great job of educating all of our kids. I just found out about a school district in Iowa--a district that includes my hometown of Cumming--that's delivering on IDEA's promise of full inclusion . . . on budget! According to the superintendent, IDEA works for everyone. For example, a girl with cerebral palsy takes home economics and French in the regular classroom. Just imagine varsity football players working on home-ec projects with a girl in a wheelchair. Each student learns about their value as individuals and their value as members of a team and community. These new dollars would go a long way toward making a real difference for both children with disabilities and their families. I've heard from parents in Iowa that their kids need more qualified interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing children and they need better mental health services and better behavioral assessments. And the additional funds will help local and area education agencies build capacity in these areas. We must redouble our efforts to help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. We need to increase dollars to every program under IDEA, not just the state grant programs. And, of course, by receiving federal dollars, states take on certain responsibilities. IDEA dollars are intended to provide children with disabilities an equal opportunity to public education. States must use this money in a way that builds their capacity to deliver necessary educational and related services to students with disabilities and meet their obligations under the law. As I understand it, one of the National Governors' Association's top priorities is to get more funding for special education. And that's just what our amendment does. The Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities strongly supports this amendment, along with the National Association of Directors of Special Education, the National School Boards Association, and American Association of School Administrators. As I said at the beginning, we can all agree that states should receive more money under IDEA. And, today, we have the incredible opportunity to fund IDEA--at no real cost to other national programs. I thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd for their leadership on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. He is absolutely right. The nondiscretionary budget we have to work with is $7 billion below a freeze. It is not a 14-percent increase. As the Senator knows, we took some of that BA last year and put it into this year. So we had an artificially low BA that year. What is in the Specter amendment is so important.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. This has to do with pension plans. All too often when the pension plans are changed, older workers who have been there a long time see nothing added to their pensions; younger workers see their pensions grow. This is age discrimination. This puts the Senate on record saying we need to change the law so workers receive adequate notice of their pension plan changes and eliminate the so-called ``wear away'' where older workers get nothing added to their pension plans for years. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. It is what is needed for this country. It is a national obligation. We ought to be rebuilding and modernizing our schools. The Senator from Virginia has it right. Amendment No. 3010 to Amendment No. 2965 (Purpose: To reduce revenue cuts by $5.9 billion over the next 5 years)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, because of increasing enrollments and aging buildings, local and State expenditures for school construction have increased dramatically by 39 percent in the last several years. However, this increase has not been enough to address the needs. The National Education Association recently surveyed States about their need to modernize public schools and upgrade education technologies. According to their preliminary report, $254 billion is needed to modernize school facilities; $54 billion is needed to upgrade education technology. In my State of Iowa, for example, $3.4 billion is needed for school facilities and $540 million for education technology. It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our children see are shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and some of the most rundown places they see are their public schools. What kind of a signal does that send about the value we place on them, their education, and their future? How can we prepare our kids for the 21st century in schools that did not even make the grade in the 20th century? This amendment by Senator Robb provides a comprehensive two-pronged response: $1.3 billion each year to make grants and no-interest loans for emergency repairs to schools. The second part of this strategy is to underwrite the cost of building nearly $25 billion of new school facilities. This amendment provides the tax credits to subsidize the interest on new construction projects to modernize public schools. Last year, six Iowa school districts received grants to underwrite the cost of building new school facilities. Over and over, school officials said the availability of the Federal grant was responsible for convincing local citizens to support a school bond issue to finance the bulk of the project. Modern, up-to-date school buildings are essential for student achievement. Studies show students in overcrowded schools, or schools in poor fiscal condition, scored significantly lower on math and reading than their peers in less crowded conditions. This is a very serious national problem. In Iowa alone during the 1990s, there were 100 fires in Iowa public schools. During the previous decade, there were only 20. The wiring is getting old, schools are catching on fire, water pipes are bursting, and they do not have the new technology our students need. If there is one thing that cries out for our intervention on a national level, it is this issue: to upgrade and modernize our schools and to build new schools where needed. All one has to do is read Jonathan Kozol's book ``Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools'' to understand in this system of ours in America where schools are financed by local bond issues, that if you have an area with high- income residents, high property values, you get pretty darn good schools. But go to areas where there are low-income people and low property values; that is where we find the poor schools. Yet a child educated in one of those poor schools does not stay in that local school district. That child moves to Iowa, California, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere else and becomes a burden on all of society. That is why this cries out for a national solution. To hear my friends on the other side, they say leave it up to the local school districts and let them handle it. Sure, if you live in a rich school district, you are fine. But if you live in a poor area of America--rural or urban--you do not have the wherewithal to build those new schools and to get the wiring and the upgrading that you need. That is why it is a national problem. It requires a national solution. That is why I hope the Coverdell amendment will be defeated and that we could get to the underlying Robb amendment and let the kids of this country and their parents and their families know that this national effort is going to go forward to rebuild our schools. I compliment the Senator from Virginia for his amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank our minority whip for yielding me this time. I do speak strongly in favor of the underlying Robb amendment of which I am a cosponsor. Senator Robb has it right when he tries to invest in rebuilding and modernizing our public schools. States and local communities are struggling right now to renovate existing schools. School construction and modernization is necessary for our kids in the 21st century. The average school in America right now, as Senator Robb said, is 42 years old. Technology is placing new demands on our schools. As a result of increased use of technology, many schools must install new wiring, telephone lines, and electrical assistance. The demand for the Internet is at an all-time high, but in the Nation's poorest schools only 39 percent of classrooms have Internet access. In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report on our Nation's infrastructure. The report found many problems with a lot of our infrastructure, but the most startling finding was with respect to our Nation's public schools. The American Society of Civil Engineers reported that public schools are in worst condition than any other sector of our national infrastructure. This is an alarming fact. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the American Society of Civil Engineers report card be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Chafee and Graham to introduce the ``KIDS Deserve Freedom from Tobacco Act of 2000.'' Just over 2 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. This bill is the first bipartisan Senate effort to restore the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco. We feel it is absolutely critical to show bipartisan support for picking up the ball the Supreme Court dropped in our lap just two weeks ago. We hope that our announcement today will be the beginning of a bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed. The need is clear. As the Supreme Court recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat to public health in the United States. A new study released just yesterday shows how the tobacco industry continues to successfully target our children. Seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33% of adults. And 77% of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes. That is why 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3 jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There is no question we face a public health crisis of unmatched proportions and we have the opportunity this year to stop it. Passing comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce the number of American children hooked on this deadly habit is a once and a lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate in Washington has so far been largely partisan. That's why we've joined arms across party lines behind the KIDS Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act, the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the odds that reforms will be made this year. Let me be clear. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted. The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court two weeks ago, were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment in the future of our kids. Our legislation will re-affirm the FDA's authority over tobacco products. It will classify nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery devices. It will allow FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation will also allow for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It will provide needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It will also include sensible advertising limits as well as other important provisions of the original FDA rule designed to reduce teen access to tobacco. For the sake of our kids and the public health, we have a responsibility to act quickly on this. Today, we begin that important effort. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to examine our legislation and give us their comments. We should not leave this year without taking this type of common sense step to protect our kids.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Chafee and Graham to introduce the ``KIDS Deserve Freedom from Tobacco Act of 2000.'' Just over 2 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. This bill is the first bipartisan Senate effort to restore the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco. We feel it is absolutely critical to show bipartisan support for picking up the ball the Supreme Court dropped in our lap just two weeks ago. We hope that our announcement today will be the beginning of a bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed. The need is clear. As the Supreme Court recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat to public health in the United States. A new study released just yesterday shows how the tobacco industry continues to successfully target our children. Seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33% of adults. And 77% of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes. That is why 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3 jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There is no question we face a public health crisis of unmatched proportions and we have the opportunity this year to stop it. Passing comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce the number of American children hooked on this deadly habit is a once and a lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate in Washington has so far been largely partisan. That's why we've joined arms across party lines behind the KIDS Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act, the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the odds that reforms will be made this year. Let me be clear. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted. The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court two weeks ago, were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment in the future of our kids. Our legislation will re-affirm the FDA's authority over tobacco products. It will classify nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery devices. It will allow FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation will also allow for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It will provide needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It will also include sensible advertising limits as well as other important provisions of the original FDA rule designed to reduce teen access to tobacco. For the sake of our kids and the public health, we have a responsibility to act quickly on this. Today, we begin that important effort. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to examine our legislation and give us their comments. We should not leave this year without taking this type of common sense step to protect our kids.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a unique moment in our history. We are at the dawn of a new century. And the United States is in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, the number of families on welfare has declined and new jobs continue to be created at a record pace. However, we know that despite the longest economic boom in history, some Americans have been left behind. As we look to the future, one of our challenges will be to make sure the rising tide lifts all boats. In addition, we also face the challenge of keeping the prosperity going. The pending budget resolution jeopardizes our prosperity. It jeopardizes the economy, threatens the Social Security surplus, and shortchanges Medicare. The resolution does not provide an adequate prescription drug benefit, provide sufficient debt reduction or invest in education. The budget resolution undermines the public's priorities and will impose deep cuts in domestic programs. Fewer children will be served by Head Start, there will be fewer new teachers to reduce class size and no additional officers for community policing. Instead, the budget proposes a risky tax scheme that jeopardizes our nation's future prosperity and productivity. The GOP's budget plan squanders the entire non-Social Security surplus on a reckless tax cut and provides no funding for national priorities such as school modernization. It rejects the President's proposal to provide $25 billion in bonds to underwrite construction of 6,000 new schools. It also rejects $1.3 billion in grants and loans for emergency repairs to public schools. This budget sets the wrong national priorities. It chooses tax cuts for the wealthy over modernizing our children's schools. The Robb- Harkin amendment corrects this serious shortcoming by providing a comprehensive national strategy to repair, renovate and modernize our public schools. States and local communities are struggling to renovate existing schools and build new ones to alleviate overcrowding. School construction and modernization are necessary to equip classrooms for the 21st Century, improve learning conditions, end overcrowding, and make smaller classes possible. Our school buildings are simply wearing out. Nearly three-quarters of all U.S. public schools were built before 1970. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, when a school is between 20 and 30 years, frequent replacement of equipment is necessary. When a school is between 30 and 40 years old all of the original equipment should have been replaced, including the roof and electrical systems. After 40 years of age, a school building begins to deteriorate rapidly and most schools are abandoned after 60 years. The average school building is 42 years old and technology is placing new demands on schools. As a result of increased use of technology, many schools must install new wiring, telephone lines and electrical systems. The demand for the Internet is at an all-time high, but in the nation's poorest schools, only 39% of classrooms have Internet access. In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on our nation's infrastructure. The report found many problems. However, the most startling finding is with respect to our nation's public schools. ASCE reports that public schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national infrastructure. This is an alarming fact and should be our call to action. The need to modernize our nation's public schools is clear, yet the Federal Government lags in helping local school districts address this critical problem. Because of increasing enrollments and aging buildings, local and State expenditures for school construction have increased dramatically--by 39% from 1990 to 1997. However, this increase has not been sufficient to address the need. The National Education Association recently surveyed states about the need to modernize public schools and upgrade education technology. According to their preliminary report, $253.9 billion is needed to modernize the school facilities and $53.7 billion is needed to upgrade education technology. For Iowa--$3.4 billion for school facilities and $540 million for education technology. It is a national disgrace that the nicest places that our children see are shopping malls, sports arenas and movie theaters and the most run down place they see is their public schools. What signal are we sending them about the value we place on them, their education and future? How can we prepare our kids for the 21st century in schools that did not make the grade in the 20th century? This amendment provides a comprehensive, two-prong response to this critical national problem. First, we would provide $1.3 billion each year to make grants and no interest loans for emergency repairs to public schools. The Public School Repair and Renovation Program would help local school districts fix the roof that is leaking, repair fire code violations and put in new electrical wiring. Mr. President, 25% of schools in New York City are still heated by coal and 46% of U.S. schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. Sixteen million children attend schools without proper heating, ventilation or air conditioning. Twelve million students attend classes in schools with defective plumbing. These grants and loans would make it possible to install the modern heating systems, plumbing, and new electrical wiring that are desperately needed in schools across America. In addition, these grants and loans could be used to remedy violations of state or local fire codes. The Iowa Fire Marshal reported a five-fold increase in the number of fires in schools over the past decade. During the 1990's there were 100 fires in Iowa schools. During the previous decade there were 20. It is clear that public schools have an urgent need to make repairs now and these grants and no-interest loans will finance up to 8,300 repair projects in 5,000 schools. We will install modern heating systems, upgrade the electrical wiring, and repair the fire code violations. These grants and loans will address problems that literally endanger the lives and safety of our children. However, some buildings have simply outlived their usefulness and need to be replaced. In addition, enrollment in elementary and secondary schools is at an all time high of 53.2 million and will continue to grow over the next 10 years. Therefore, it will be necessary for the United States to build an additional 6,000 schools to educate the growing number of students. The second part of our comprehensive strategy is to underwrite the cost of building nearly $25 billion of new school facilities. Our amendment provides tax credits to subsidize the interest on new construction projects to modernize public schools. School districts would be able to replaced outdated buildings or add more class rooms so they can reduce class size. The school modernization bonds would finance modernization projects for 6,000 schools. Our amendment provides a modest national investment to modernize our nation's schools and will make a big difference for millions of children. Further, the amendment is fully offset by reducing the ill- conceived tax scheme in the Budget Resolution. I know this kind of approach will work because it is working in Iowa. Iowa is in the second year of a school modernization and repair demonstration project. Like the Robb-Harkin Amendment, the Iowa demonstration also takes a two-prong approach toward solving this critical problem. First, the Iowa project provides grants for the repair of fire code violations. Secondly, the Iowa project provides grants to subsidize the cost of constructing new school facilities. In a relatively short period of time, we have already begun to see a difference in Iowa. Over the past two years, 138 grants have been awarded for projects to repair fire code violations. The federal government provided $6.5 million to install fire alarms, upgrade electrical systems and other repairs to make Iowa schools safer. Last year, six Iowa school districts received grants to underwrite the cost of building new school facilities. Over and over, school officials said the availability of the federal grant was responsible for convincing local citizens to support the school bond issue that finance the bulk of the project. Several school districts passed school bond issues after several tries. One superintendent said, ``In the past, our school district ran three bond issues unsuccessfully and it is a credit to the Department of Education . . . for providing this Iowa Demonstration Grant funding as an incentive to help voters pass bond issues.'' Another Superintendent said, ``It is our opinion that both of these grants played a very important role regarding the successful passing of the bond issue.'' The most recent competition was just closed and applications for the second year of funding are being reviewed. The Iowa School Construction Grant is beginning to show the kind of major impact a modest federal investment can have on improving the safety of schools and spurring construction of new school facilities. The school modernization provisions mirror the Iowa Demonstration and will spur the same kind of activity across the nation that we are witnessing in Iowa. The Iowa School Construction Grant is beginning to show the kind of major impact a modest federal investment can have on improving the safety of schools and spurring construction of new school facilities. Our amendment mirrors the Iowa Demonstration and will spur the same kind of activity across the nation that we are witnessing in Iowa. Modern, up-to-date school buildings are essential for student achievement. Studies show that students in overcrowded schools or schools in poor physical condition scored significantly lower on both math and reading than their peers in less crowded conditions. The General Accounting Office reports that 14 million American children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate. This is a serious national problem. And, it demands a comprehensive national response. The Robb-Harkin Amendment provides that effective national response. I commend Senator Robb for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I have been on the floor since the last vote.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud the U.S. is the world leader in the advancement of technology, providing businesses and consumers faster and better ways to work and to communicate. But even though we have made great progress in technology, much of rural and small town America has been left behind. In the small town of Cumming, IA, where I was born and still have a house I live in when I am not here, we do not have access. We do not even have cable yet. So a lot of people are putting up satellite dishes as the only way of getting adequate information through television. I joined a Senate rural telecommunications task force last year to address these issues and to work, as a group, to pass legislation to help rural communities catch up. Just as cable and telephone companies say it does not make good business sense to provide service to a few customers in Cumming, IA, for example, we know that without this access rural America will suffer and will be left behind in the new digital age. You talk about a digital divide. There is a digital divide and rural America is on the short end of that divide. We are not just talking about high-speed Internet access or reliable telephone lines. We are talking about the lack of access to basic local TV programming--local weather, local news, local school information for rural residents and farm families. You would think it is easy; if you live on a farm or in a small town in rural Iowa, you just put an antenna on your house and get the local weather and news from a local TV station. Once again, it is not that easy for rural and small town residents. An antenna just doesn't reach that far. Weather conditions interrupt, for example. Cable will not extend lines outside of metropolitan areas because of the high cost. As I said, in my hometown, we do not have cable yet. We live fairly close to a metropolitan area. The satellite dish came along and provided relief and access and they sprouted up like mushrooms all over rural Iowa and rural America. But the satellite also has its problems. It does not include what is called ``local-into-local'' programming, into small and rural TV markets. The satellite dish companies say they do not have the capacity in their existing satellites. That is what they say. I happen to have a satellite dish on my house in Virginia, 12 miles from here. I can turn that thing on any time and get hundreds of channels--many of which are, I think, kind of ridiculous, but they are there. So they can provide hundreds of channels to customers in metropolitan areas, but they cannot transmit local TV to the 60 million customers who live outside the big TV markets, they say, without launching more multimillion-dollar satellites. Last year, we fought hard to keep in the satellite bill a rural loan guarantee program, one that would make it easier for companies or nonprofit cooperatives to provide local TV to rural customers. Unfortunately, it was taken out at the last minute before the bill was passed and signed into law. Senator Gramm, the Chairman of the Banking Committee, has drafted a rural loan guarantee bill, similar to the one I cosponsored last year, that will go a long way to ensuring that rural residents receive the benefit of local television. However, I am concerned about the provision in the bill that requires all potential lenders in the Loan Guarantee Program to be Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured. That language would exclude several qualified lenders who have previously provided financing under the Rural Electrification Act. These institutions include the Cooperative Finance Corporation, the CFC, and other lenders that have the financial strength, the expertise, and the ability to participate in this program for rural citizens. These institutions have had years of experience. They have had a strong record in lending to rural and electric cooperatives. I urge my colleagues to approve the Johnson-Thomas bipartisan amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, to allow qualified lenders with experience, expertise, and a strong reputation in these types of programs, to participate in the funding subject to approval. The cooperatives use lenders such as CFC because it means lower interest rates, resulting in a more affordable and workable project. Again, I don't want to say I am favoring cooperatives or any one over another providing local TV in rural areas. I favor any institution and any technology that would be willing to provide local service to most customers in unserved areas; however, without the Johnson-Thomas amendment, we are effectively, legislatively shutting out a potential participant interested in extending local TV to rural America. They might win, they might not, but why should we shut them out of this process. I would also like to mention Senator Dorgan's Rural Broadband Enhancement Act, introduced yesterday--again of which I am a cosponsor. This important legislation would help ensure that rural and small town America are not left behind by the revolution taking place in the technology industry that I mentioned earlier. The Dorgan bill would authorize $3 billion for a revolving loan fund over 5 years to provide capital for low-interest loans to finance construction of the needed broadband infrastructure. I am an original cosponsor of this bill because we cannot sit around waiting for this important technology to come to rural and small town America on its own. We know from past experience that we need to help make it happen. I believe the Dorgan bill will provide the incentives for companies to expand beyond their urban markets. The Rural Broadband Enhancement Act and the Rural Loan Guarantee-- LOCAL TV bill that is being considered on the floor today, are sorely needed in rural America. They both are akin to what happened in the 1930s with the Rural Electrification Act when we started to electrify rural America. I at one time did some research on that. I read the Senate debates when the Senate was debating whether or not to pass the Rural Electrification Act to provide the long-term, low-interest loans through cooperatives to build rural electric lines to families such as mine in rural Iowa. At that time there was more than one Senator who got up and said this is a free market. If private companies do not want to go out there and build these electric lines to rural America, that is the marketplace. If people living in rural America don't like it there because they don't have electricity, they can move to the cities. Fortunately, those voices were in the minority. The majority recognized that because of the sparse population in rural America, it was going to cost a little more for the initial installing of those rural electrification lines. What happened after that, of course, was because of the electrification of rural America we saw new schools go up. We saw new factories and plants go up to buttress the farm economy in our rural areas. We saw colleges being built. So all of rural America expanded and became financially more sound because of the investment we made up front in rural electrification. We face that same kind of frontier right now both in broadband access and also in access to local television broadcasting. That is why I feel so strongly that these are synergistic. The Dorgan bill introduced yesterday for broadband access and the Johnson-Thomas amendment which is before the body will provide the same kind of long- term, low-interest loans that could be made available through cooperatives and through other institutions to provide for a better possibility that we will get direct, local-to-local satellite broadcasting in rural America. I hope the Senate will review this history. I hope the majority of this body will support the Johnson-Thomas bipartisan amendment so that rural America can have the same kind of satellite dish reception that we get in rural Virginia 12 miles from here. We can get on our satellite dish in our home ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, all local from Washington, DC. It costs about four or five bucks a month. I believe people all over rural Iowa and rural Kansas would be willing to pay four or five bucks a month to get that kind of local television service from their local stations' satellite so they can know when tornadoes are approaching, bad weather, when schools are closed, and other local information they need which they otherwise do not get. I urge adoption of the Johnson-Thomas amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to express my congratulations to and praise for the outstanding performance of both the men's and women's basketball teams at Iowa State University and the women's basketball team at Drake University this year. Drake concluded its season with a 23-7 record, while winning its fourth Missouri Valley Conference championship in the last six years and another automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. Carla Bennet was named to the MVC All-Tournament team along with junior guard Kristin Santa. This year was Drake's seventh appearance in the tournament. The Bulldogs have advanced to the tournament four times in the last six years, with appearances in 1986, 1984, and 1982 as well so they continue a long, proud tradition. Both Iowa State teams finished as regular season champions of the Big XII conference, then followed up that feat with convincing wins at the conference championship tournament, entitling each team to an automatic bid in the 2000 NCAA basketball tournaments. The men's championship was the university's first since 1945, when the conference was still the Big 6, while it was the first women's conference title since varsity women's basketball started at Iowa State in 1973. So these are great accomplishments. Their achievements are exemplified by the selections of Marcus Fizer as a first-team All-American from the men's program and Stacy Frese as a second-team All-American from the women's program, but each team is much more than just its stars. Both All-Americans are complemented by strong position players throughout their respective teams, and neither team would have reached this pinnacle without the enthusiastic support of Iowa State's fans. On the weekend of the Big XII championships, held in Kansas City, a substantial portion of the city of Ames migrated south for that event, filling the arenas with loyal wearers of cardinal and gold, the team colors. As an Iowa State graduate myself, I want to salute their accomplishments, including their fine performances in the NCAA tournaments. Both teams were active in the tournament through last weekend, the men losing in the regional finals and the women in the regional semifinals. We have a long, proud tradition of excellent basketball teams in the state of Iowa at the high school and college level, and Iowa State's 1999-2000 men's and women's basketball teams and the Drake women's team have shown themselves worthy of joining that pantheon. They're both great teams, and they did Iowa proud.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership and work with all of us on the Agriculture Committee and in the Senate as a whole to bring this bill along to this point. It is a good bill and it will provide a lot of needed help to our nation's farmers and rural economy. I also want to thank and congratulate my colleagues, especially Senator Kerrey and Senator Roberts, for their fine efforts. I too express my gratitude for the hard work and dedication of all the staff as mentioned by Chairman Lugar, who have contributed to crafting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the pending amendment, which, as I understand, is the Wellstone amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution commending the many farmers--the thousands of farmers and their families--who came to Washington over the last few days to rally in support of what I would call a sensible, sane, rational, and compassionate farm program that would support our farm families throughout this country. We had farmers from every State. In fact, I listened to one farmer from Alaska who was here, a dairy farmer. So the rally actually was a national rally, one that encompassed all parts of our country. What I heard, in talking to these farm families from across America, was a plaintive cry for us to have a farm policy in America that recognizes the essential worth, the essential importance, of having a structure of agriculture based upon family farming--widely dispersed, broadly based--rather than having a vertical structure characterized by conglomerates and huge vertical integrators that does not respond to the needs of local areas. What these farm families were expressing was a frustration, a frustration borne out of their life experiences in knowing that what they have done and what their parents and grandparents before them had done in agriculture, knowing that this had benefited not only our Nation but had benefited the areas in which they lived. Because we had a lot of farm families in rural areas, we had prosperous small towns and communities. We had businesses in those communities. We had good schools and churches. We had a sense of community in rural America. Out of this structure in rural America came the sons and daughters who went on to colleges--land grant colleges, many of them--and who then became some of the great leaders of our country. I need not remind those in this body of some of the great leaders in our own Senate who came from rural America, small towns and communities, farm families. I just saw our distinguished former majority and minority leader, Senator Dole, come across the floor. He comes from Russell, KS. You can't find a much smaller town than that. He has dedicated his life to public service. He is a great friend of mine and was a great leader in the Senate. I wonder how many more leaders we will get in this country coming from small towns and rural America when all these small towns have dried up, when there are no more opportunities there. I think what I heard at this rally was this frustration. The farm families know what they have contributed to the well-being of our country and our communities. Yet now they are being decimated. They see their neighbors, one by one, being driven off the farm because of the economic structure we have in America. In 1998, two Iowa State University economists reported that as many as one-third of Iowa farmers would face serious financial problems if the farm economy did not improve. They would either restructure their operations or go out of business entirely. That was one out of three estimated in 1998. Earlier this year, an updated study by the same economists concluded that as many as half of all Iowa farmers are classified as financially weak or severely stressed; that is, every other farmer in the State of Iowa is in real trouble. A couple of farm families spoke to me when I was at the rally on the Mall in response to something I had heard, saying that their churches, which used to be packed on Sunday morning--all the pews were filled-- are now half empty, that they can't even afford to pay their own minister any longer. They have a circuit rider who rides to three or four churches a week. So they lack that kind of pastoral counseling upon which families have come to rely. Indeed, we are seeing a wholesale selling out of our farm and ranch families and our rural communities. The stakes are very high. I heard this great frustration from all of these farm families. Their question to us is: What are you going to do? Is this just some inevitable, invisible hand that is doing this, or are the laws of our country structured so they discriminate unfairly against family farmers? I think the latter is true. There is no invisible handwriting that farm families are a relic of the past, that our farmers have to get bigger and bigger and bigger, that our small towns have to dry up. I think it is because of policies we set in the Congress. I think those policies have to change. The farm bill we have now, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, has been a wreck. There is only one good part of it, and that is planting flexibility. That is all. The rest of it has been a wreck. The Federal Government has sent out over $15 billion in emergency money in the past 2 years. That is not counting what we sent out under the regular farm bill itself. Of course, that money was needed by the bankers, by the chemical and fertilizer dealers, by the repair shops, by the fuel dealers, by the landlords. A lot of that money went out not to save the farmer but to save the very people about whom I speak: the bankers, chemical and fertilizer dealers, repair shops, and the landlords. In fact, a lot of that money went to farmers who didn't even plant a crop last year. Tell me if that makes sense. The bailout packages we have had over the last couple of years have been bailouts for the Freedom to Farm bill and not for our farmers. That was a record amount of money we sent out last year. What did it get us? Is the farm economy any healthier? No. USDA tells us if we don't pass an emergency package again this year, net farm income is going to fall by 17 percent compared to last year. Tell me what farmer can afford to take another 17-percent cut. That is net farming; that is not gross. That is what they used to clothe and feed their families and buy some new equipment, pay the mortgage, and hopefully set aside a little bit for the children to go to college. So it looks as if we will have to come up with another emergency package again this year. That is not a farm program. That is not a farm bill. That is lurching from one emergency to the next. Again, our farmers are the victims. I was hopeful that this year we could have some hearings and a debate on the Freedom to Farm bill to see what changes we could make in it to get to a rational system of farm supports, a farm program combining conservation, storage payments, better loan rates, some shorter term set-aside programs, so we would have a balanced package, the prices at the farmgate would be higher, so the farmers could get their money from the marketplace and not from a Government paycheck. That is the debate we need. Yet that debate is not going to happen this year. We are not going to have the hearings, and we will not have the debate. Quite frankly, the frustration felt by most of these farm families is going to continue to fester and grow. I think we will see even more frustration in rural America because we lack the will and, quite frankly, we lack the leadership to redress the failed Freedom to Farm bill. I compliment the Senator from Minnesota for his sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I believe the farm families who took money out of their own pockets, which they could ill afford to do--they got on buses; they came here and endured rain and cold weather, slogging around in mud and water to make their case known to Congress, exercising their first amendment rights to petition their Government--did what is in the best tradition of America. I hope their voices and the frustration we heard will not go unheeded. I hope we can understand that we have an obligation in this body and in the other body to address the plight of what is happening in rural America today. I come from a small town of 150 people. I remember growing up as a child when we had an elevator, we had a grocery store, a hardware store, and a small implement dealer. They are all gone now. They are all gone. I am not saying we have to save every town of 150 people. But it is not only those towns. It is those towns of 2,000, 3,000, or 5,000 people that are also going under, because I believe we don't have an adequate farm program that will enable our farmers to get a better price in the marketplace. Again, I support this resolution. I commend the farmers who came here. I hope and trust we can hear their plea and do something about changing the failed Freedom to Farm bill. I also wish to say I hope after this vote at 11 o'clock we can have a resounding vote in support of the crop insurance bill that is before us. We need to fix the Crop Insurance Program. I commend Senator Roberts from Kansas and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska for their leadership in this area. The Crop Insurance Program needs to be changed. We put $6 billion in the budget last year for that. I believe it will be a very strong part of helping farmers get through some of these tough times that we have right now. It is not the answer to all of the problems in the farm communities, but it is a part of it. Hopefully, with this modified crop insurance bill, we can go to conference with the House right away and get it to the President by May. I will for my part do everything I can with the conferees on our side to expedite the conference. There are not that many differences between the House and the Senate bill--a few, but nothing we can't work out in a timely manner. I hope we can get this crop insurance bill through. I hope we can get a resounding vote for it, and at least send some hope to our family farmers that at least in the area of crop insurance and revenue insurance coverage we are going to pay some attention. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is going to take an important and long overdue step to stop penalizing older workers in our Nation-- eliminating the Social Security earnings penalty. This is a change I have advocated for many years. So I am very pleased we are taking this important step. This legislation, H.R. 5, is an important step for a number of reasons. First, it is simply the right thing to do. There should not be a penalty for working. Second, we are now facing and will continue to face tight labor markets. In my State of Iowa, this is an acute problem in some areas. By eliminating the earnings penalty, experienced workers who were discouraged from continuing in or rejoining the work force will have a new incentive to work. The emergence of the Internet and home computers offers tremendous opportunities for seniors to work at home. Marrying these new job opportunities with a repeal of the earnings penalty will become even more important as the Baby Boomers retire. Third, a large number of older Americans need the income. Over half of today's workers have no pension plans outside of Social Security. They are going to need additional sources of income to maintain their standard of living. Some critics have expressed concern that this change would have a negative budgetary impact. I believe that by attracting more Americans back into the work force, either on a full-time or part-time basis, it will strengthen Social Security and the federal budget. And I believe they will add to the productivity of our nation. I am pleased that the Senate has been able to come together on a strong bipartisan basis to pass this bill. The President has indicated his support and so it should become the law of the land in the next few weeks. That would be a good step forward for our Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his leadership and graciousness on this bill and for working hard to get it out on the floor in a timely manner. I am hopeful that we can dispose of it fairly rapidly today and move on. We are here considering passage of a crop insurance reform bill that we just reported out of the Agriculture Committee on March 2. It has been a long and difficult journey to get to this point, not the least because we had a lot of good ideas from Members of this body and of the committee. I think there were no fewer than six comprehensive bills introduced on this issue. I would like to think the bill we will have at the desk shortly incorporates the best provisions of each of them. I am sure our colleagues in the House are eager for us to finish our work on this because they passed their crop insurance bill last September. So hopefully we can get this passed and get to conference and get this thing wrapped up. The bill we are going to have before us shortly, S. 2251, takes advantage of the opportunity offered by last year's budget resolution to apply $6 billion to a reform of the Federal crop insurance system. This effort probably has taken on some added urgency recently due to the low commodity prices faced by our farmers. But I caution my colleagues not to place too much emphasis on the potential role of crop insurance in remedying those problems. When the last set of crop insurance reforms were passed in 1994, this program was complemented by a number of others which together comprised what was called the farm safety net. Much of the countercyclical element of that safety net was removed by Freedom to Farm, laying the foundation, I think, for some unreasonable expectations about the ability of crop insurance to offset the effects of an agricultural economy that went south. I do not mean geographically. Aside from problems in the general farm economy, which crop insurance was never intended to deal with, the last few years have exposed other weaknesses in the program, which this bill does attempt to address. First of all, although the program currently covers about two-thirds of acreage for eligible crops, much of that coverage either represents catastrophic policies or policies at the lower levels of buy-up coverage. This bill offers enhanced subsidies for the purpose of buying crop insurance. Under the current system, the percentage subsidy peaks at the 65/100 level, making farmers eat a 35-percent loss of crop value before they qualify for any relief. We want to encourage farmers to insure their crops at a higher level of buy-up, which we hope will have the effect of reducing the probability of future ad hoc disaster relief programs. We are also equalizing premium subsidies for revenue insurance coverage, which Iowa farmers have eagerly adopted. In 1999, Crop Revenue Coverage and other revenue products covered more than 60 percent of insured acres in my State of Iowa, I might add, the highest percentage in the country. The revenue insurance concept was one of the best things to come out of the 1994 reform, and I want to thank those at USDA and the private sector who did the hard work to make it available. In addition, this bill includes provisions which fixes APH problems associated with multi-year natural disasters, makes the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program more attractive, and offers greater support and flexibility in conducting research and development of new crop insurance products, especially for specialty crops. On the administrative side, it strengthens oversight of the industry and penalties for noncompliance and fraud, clarifies reporting requirements, makes changes to the structure of the Board of Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and requires USDA to pay more attention to regions of the country where crop insurance is not viewed as an attractive option. Chairman Lugar offered a competing vision for addressing concerns about crop insurance and risk management for farmers. His approach was to encourage farmers to adopt a wide range of risk management practices, rather than focus just on crop insurance. In the spirit of compromise, this bill included a $500 million risk management pilot within the substitute amendment offered and passed in committee, and I look forward to what USDA learns from implementing this program for 3 years, assuming it will be implemented into law. I am pleased that the committee adopted an amendment I offered during markup which restores the conservation compliance requirement for crop insurance, which passed by voice vote. I do not believe it is unreasonable to treat crop insurance and risk management payments in the same way as we treat FSA loans, disaster payments or any other USDA benefits. For all those other benefits, farmers do have to comply with conservation programs. That is especially so considering that crop insurance is already a substantial USDA program, costing nearly $2 billion a year. With this legislation, we will add about $1.5 billion a year in additional spending for crop insurance and risk management programs. It seems only right that for some $3.5 billion a year, we should be doing all we can to ensure the programs are also promoting conservation of our precious soil and water. We also worked to strengthen the risk management program by adding resource management practices and organic farming as eligible options, and instructed the Risk Management Agency to view scientifically sound sustainable and organic farming practices as good farming practices. All in all, I think this crop insurance bill is a good piece of legislation. I especially want to compliment my colleagues, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Roberts from Kansas, for their strong leadership in a bipartisan manner on this bill. I believe they have engineered and built a good bill, a bill that will help us in all parts of the country in those things I just spoke about--everything from specialty crops in one area to the big wheat and grain crops in other parts of the country--with the provisions in there that mandate that USDA is to find new ways of making crop insurance more attractive in those areas of the country that have low sign-up rates. Finally, I think the vision of both Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey in getting the subsidies for the buy-up--that really is the heart and soul of this bill to ensure that farmers will have a better deal when they buy up their risk coverage for their crops and their crop insurance programs. It is a good bill. It deserves the support of the Senate. Hopefully, we can get it up, and hopefully get it through in due course yet today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I look forward to working with my good friend from Indiana and Massachusetts to pass strong hunger relief legislation this year. In my work on the Agriculture Committee, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been dismayed not only to see the reports of increasing hunger among children and working families that Senator Kennedy describes, but also to hear scientists explain how inadequate nutrition limits children's ability to learn at school and adults' ability to concentrate at work. I join my colleagues in urging the Budget Committee to report a resolution that includes a reserve fund of $2.5 billion over five years to alleviate hunger in America.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. I commend my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank Senator Kennedy for his continued leadership on these issues. This bill would help many children across the country get the services they need to grow up and become independent and productive members of society. And, it will help their families stay afloat financially. I am always encouraged when issues affecting individuals with disabilities and their families rise above partisan lines. Disability is not a partisan issue. President Bush understood that. Bob Dole understands that. And I am glad to see that my fellow senator from Iowa has joined me in the fight to ensure that children with disabilities and their families get a fair shake in life. Just last year the Congress and the President agreed that we should remove barriers to work for people with disabilities in our national programs when it passed the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 into law. The Family Opportunity Act builds on that bipartisan agreement and says that we should also remove barriers to work for families of children with disabilities. Right now, many families are forced to spend down their savings and earnings on specialized services for their children because their private insurance won't cover them. Other families give up jobs and promotions so that they continue to qualify for Medicaid. This is wrong for two reasons. First, it's the child that suffers if appropriate services aren't available due to high cost and lack of insurance coverage. Second, if a family is forced to pay for expensive services time and again or forced to give up an employment opportunity, the entire family is pushed to edge financially. As a result, the family can become impoverished or forced to give up custody of their child in order to secure appropriate Medicaid services. This bill provides a commonsense solution to the problem. The bill allows States to offer Medicaid coverage to children with severe disabilities living in middle-income families through a buy-in program. children will get the right early intervention services, rehabilitation and long-term therapies, and medical equipment they need to keep pace and grow into adulthood. And, parents will no longer have to sacrifice a job, a raise, or overtime so they can stay inside the income bracket that qualifies their child for SSI/Medicaid. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will ensure that children get the services they need to stay at home with their families. Keeping families strong is the best therapy for everyone--the child, the family, and the entire community. Finally, the Family to Family Health Information Centers included in the bill will ensure every family knows what about the services and opportunities that are available to them. I know this type of information exchange works because I've taken the lead to fund similar programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Ten years ago, as the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I said on the Senate floor that I wanted every child and individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of American life. Since that time, I have worked hard to ensure that every national program encourages independence and self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities. Each step we take to live up to the promise of the Americans with Disabilities' Act is progress. Last year's Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement was a big step toward equality. The Family Opportunity Act builds on that legislation. In my mind, the Medicaid Community Attendant Services Act (MiCASSA), introduced by myself and Senator Specter last fall, takes the next big step toward fulfilling the promise of the ADA. Given a real choice, most Americans who need long-term services and supports would prefer to receive them in home and community settings rather than in institutions. And yet, too often decisions relating to the provision of long-term services and supports are influenced by what is reimbursable under Federal and State Medicaid policy rather than by what individuals need. Research has revealed a significant bias in the Medicaid program toward reimbursing services provided in institutions over services provided in home and community settings (75 percent of Medicaid funds pay for services provided in institutions). Long-term services and supports provided under the Medicaid program must meet the evolving and changing needs and preferences of individuals. No individual should be forced into an institution to receive reimbursement for services that can be effectively and efficiently delivered in the home or community. Individuals must be empowered to exercise and real choice in selecting long term services and supports that meet their unique needs. Federal and State Medicaid policies should facilitate and be responsive to and not impede an individual's choice in selecting needed long-term services and supports. MiCASSA would eliminate the bias in Medicaid law toward institutional care by providing that stats offer community attendant services and supports as well as institutional care for eligible individuals in need of long term services and supports. The legislation also assists states develop and enhance comprehensive statewide system of long-term services and supports that provide real consumer choice consistent with the principle that service and supports should be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to meeting the unique need of the individual. I look forward to building further bipartisan agreement on both pieces of legislation. This is an exciting time for disability policy.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. I commend my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank Senator Kennedy for his continued leadership on these issues. This bill would help many children across the country get the services they need to grow up and become independent and productive members of society. And, it will help their families stay afloat financially. I am always encouraged when issues affecting individuals with disabilities and their families rise above partisan lines. Disability is not a partisan issue. President Bush understood that. Bob Dole understands that. And I am glad to see that my fellow senator from Iowa has joined me in the fight to ensure that children with disabilities and their families get a fair shake in life. Just last year the Congress and the President agreed that we should remove barriers to work for people with disabilities in our national programs when it passed the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 into law. The Family Opportunity Act builds on that bipartisan agreement and says that we should also remove barriers to work for families of children with disabilities. Right now, many families are forced to spend down their savings and earnings on specialized services for their children because their private insurance won't cover them. Other families give up jobs and promotions so that they continue to qualify for Medicaid. This is wrong for two reasons. First, it's the child that suffers if appropriate services aren't available due to high cost and lack of insurance coverage. Second, if a family is forced to pay for expensive services time and again or forced to give up an employment opportunity, the entire family is pushed to edge financially. As a result, the family can become impoverished or forced to give up custody of their child in order to secure appropriate Medicaid services. This bill provides a commonsense solution to the problem. The bill allows States to offer Medicaid coverage to children with severe disabilities living in middle-income families through a buy-in program. children will get the right early intervention services, rehabilitation and long-term therapies, and medical equipment they need to keep pace and grow into adulthood. And, parents will no longer have to sacrifice a job, a raise, or overtime so they can stay inside the income bracket that qualifies their child for SSI/Medicaid. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will ensure that children get the services they need to stay at home with their families. Keeping families strong is the best therapy for everyone--the child, the family, and the entire community. Finally, the Family to Family Health Information Centers included in the bill will ensure every family knows what about the services and opportunities that are available to them. I know this type of information exchange works because I've taken the lead to fund similar programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Ten years ago, as the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I said on the Senate floor that I wanted every child and individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of American life. Since that time, I have worked hard to ensure that every national program encourages independence and self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities. Each step we take to live up to the promise of the Americans with Disabilities' Act is progress. Last year's Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement was a big step toward equality. The Family Opportunity Act builds on that legislation. In my mind, the Medicaid Community Attendant Services Act (MiCASSA), introduced by myself and Senator Specter last fall, takes the next big step toward fulfilling the promise of the ADA. Given a real choice, most Americans who need long-term services and supports would prefer to receive them in home and community settings rather than in institutions. And yet, too often decisions relating to the provision of long-term services and supports are influenced by what is reimbursable under Federal and State Medicaid policy rather than by what individuals need. Research has revealed a significant bias in the Medicaid program toward reimbursing services provided in institutions over services provided in home and community settings (75 percent of Medicaid funds pay for services provided in institutions). Long-term services and supports provided under the Medicaid program must meet the evolving and changing needs and preferences of individuals. No individual should be forced into an institution to receive reimbursement for services that can be effectively and efficiently delivered in the home or community. Individuals must be empowered to exercise and real choice in selecting long term services and supports that meet their unique needs. Federal and State Medicaid policies should facilitate and be responsive to and not impede an individual's choice in selecting needed long-term services and supports. MiCASSA would eliminate the bias in Medicaid law toward institutional care by providing that stats offer community attendant services and supports as well as institutional care for eligible individuals in need of long term services and supports. The legislation also assists states develop and enhance comprehensive statewide system of long-term services and supports that provide real consumer choice consistent with the principle that service and supports should be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to meeting the unique need of the individual. I look forward to building further bipartisan agreement on both pieces of legislation. This is an exciting time for disability policy.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased with the provisions of the conference report concerning slots that provide for a two-step process for the elimination of airline slots, landing and take off rights at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. Senator Grassley and I proposed a similar method for the elimination of slots at those three airports over a year ago. I am very pleased that we have been able to work closely with Chairman McCain, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hollings, and others on the development of this proposal. I am proud of the support that we have received from a majority of the attorneys general led by Iowa's own Attorney General Tom Miller. The U.S. Department of Transportation deserves special praise for its initiative calling for the elimination of the anticompetitive slot rule that was the starting point of our proposal. Chairman Shuster and the House also deserve considerable praise for their proposal to eliminate the slot rule at these airports last June. I want to especially commend Chairman McCain and his staff for working so closely with us on this issue. He held a field hearing in Des Moines on April 30 last year to hear firsthand how the current system effects small and medium-sized cities. He has worked hard to move forward a proposal which I believe will significantly increase competition. That was not an easy task. I also want to especially thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff for their considerable efforts. Both Senators have shown a keen interest in the problems unique to smaller cities where adequate service is the paramount issue. The phasing out of the slot requirements at these airports is an important step toward eliminating a major barrier to airline competition. And, by doing so in this two step process mitigates against some of the long-term effects of the government-imposed slot rule. Under current rules, most smaller airlines have, in effect, had a far more difficult time competing, in part because of the slot rule. The conference report allows small airlines to expanded access to all four slot controlled airports to some degree. Not as much as our original proposal. I would have liked to have seen a longer phase in of the rule at O'Hare and broader provisions for limited incumbent--that is newer and usually smaller airlines to provide additional, often competitive service which will hopefully result in lower fares and improved service in many markets. The final provisions are not as broad as Senator Grassley and I initially proposed. But they are a genuine and substantial improvement. This will help stimulate increased competition and lower ticket prices. Unfortunately, at LaGuardia, smaller airlines will not be able to establish service between their hubs and LaGuardia. The number of flights to O'Hare by newer airlines is limited. But, the measure provides some real opportunities to newer often low cost carriers during the phase in period. The measure allows a carrier to establish new service to O'Hare without any restriction starting in May so long as the new service is with aircraft with fewer than 70 seats. Cities like Sioux City in Iowa and other small and medium sized cities around O'Hare will hopefully be able to see service to O'Hare, important to many businesses and those cities economy. And, an airline can also increase the frequency of service to smaller cities so long as aircraft with fewer than 70 seats are used. Recently, Burlington IA, was facing the loss of an important round trip to O'Hare purely because of the slot rule. The Quad Cities lost service by American Airlines last year because, in part, a limited number of slots were available. There is some chance that both decisions may be reversed now that slot restrictions will no longer impact those decisions. Timing of service to smaller cities will be more efficient and carriers will be able to increase their frequency. I am very pleased that the conferees approved a two for one rule, giving an additional slot to airlines that upgrade an existing round trip turbojet service to smaller cities with a regional jet. This provides an incentive to provide improved service to smaller cities when it makes sense to do it. In the final step, after a shorter period than I would like at O'Hare and a longer period than I think is best at the New York Airports, the slot rules would be ended at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. In both cases I am hopeful that competitive airlines might get a change to establish a foothold and smaller cities would have established better service that will continue in the long term. Access to affordable air service is essential to efficient commerce and economic development. Americans have a right to expect it. Airports are paid for by the traveling public through taxes and by fees charged by the Federal Government and local airport authorities. Unfortunately, when deregulation came along in 1978, there was no effective framework put in place to deal with anticompetitive practices. Many of these practices have become business as usual. The result has been increased air fares and decreased service to mid-size and small communities. The slot rule, originally put in place because of the limitations of the air traffic control system has been an effective competition. The DOT, improperly, I believe, literally gave the right to land and take off to those who used these airports on January 21, 1986. That effectively locked in the current users of those airports and locked out effective competition. It gave away a public resource. Finally, this bill phases out the slot rule and its anti-competitive effects and its negative effects on smaller communities. Lastly, I wanted to say a few words about the budget. Our airways system has some very real problems. Capacity is limited. There are many pressure points that create bottlenecks, slowing down traffic. We need more gates, more runways and taxiways. We need better equipment and computers as well as additional flight controllers in order to increase the capacity of the system at a number of points. Long delays at our nations airports decrease the efficiency of our entire economy. This bill does provide for considerable increases in funds. While many very necessary things are costly, some of the things that can be done with the airways systems do not cost large sums. For example, if pilots received written comments from flight controllers rather than verbal commands, the efficiency of the system would improve and the chance of errors would decrease. But, the culture of the system is slow to change. This step is now moving toward a multiyear test and then a multiyear implementation. Changes like this one should be implemented more quickly. If we are able to provide the considerable increases in funding the airways system needs and for which this bill provides, we must see reasonable levels of funding for domestic discretionary spending over the coming years or the sums provided in this measure are not likely to occur. los angeles tech department of professional aviation

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the pending amendment with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb. Senator Robb has been a great advocate for improving education for many years. The facts about the need for this amendment to help modernize and upgrade our nation's public school facilities are well known. The average school building is 42 years old. Nearly three-quarters of all public schools were built before 1970. Fourteen million American children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate and the General Accounting Office estimates it will cost $112 billion to upgrade existing public schools to overall good condition. Forty-six percent of schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. Enrollment in elementary and secondary schools is at an all time high and will continue to grow over the next 10 years, making it necessary for the United States to build an additional 6,000 schools. It is a national disgrace that the nicest places that our children see are shopping malls, sports arenas and movie theaters and the most run down place they see are their public schools. What signal are we sending them about the value we place on them, their education and future? How can we prepare our kids for the 21st century in schools that did not make the grade in the 20th century? Last year I visited Hiatt Middle School in Des Moines. This school opened its doors in 1925 and students spend all but a few hours a week in classrooms built during a time when Americans could not imagine the technological advances that would occur by the end of the century. In 1925, Americans were flocking to movie theaters to see--and hear-- the first talking motion picture--Al Jolson's ``The Jazz Singer.'' The students who walked through the doors of the brand new Hiatt school that year could not imagine IMAX theaters with surround sound where a movie goer actually becomes a part of the film. In 1925, consumers were lining up in department stores to buy novelties like electric phonographs, dial telephones, and self-winding watches. CD's, DVD players, cellular telephones, or palm pilots were unthinkable. And, the introduction of state-of-the-art technologies like rural electrification and crop dusting were revolutionizing the lives of families and farmers alike. There have been incredible technological and scientific advances in the past seven decades. Yet, our schools have not kept pace with the times. We continue to educate our children in schools built and equipped in bygone eras. We must make sure that every child and every school can facilitate the technology of the 21st century. However, Iowa State University reports that we need at least $4 billion over the next ten years to repair and upgrade school buildings in Iowa and make sure they can effectively utilize educational technology. The amendment we are offering is a comprehensive, two-prong response to this critical national problem. First, we would authorize $1.3 billion to make grants and loans for emergency repairs to public schools. Mr. President, the Iowa Fire Marshall reported a five-fold increase in the number of fires in schools over the past decade. During the 1990's there were 100 fires in Iowa schools. During the previous decade there were 20. It is clear that public schools have an urgent need to make repairs now and these grants and no-interest loans will finance up to 8,300 repair projects. We will fix the roofs, upgrade the electrical systems, and repair the fire code violations. The second part of our comprehensive strategy is to provide $25 billion in tax credits to modernize our nation's schools. These tax credits will subsidize the interest on new construction projects that will enable school districts to build new schools to replace outdated buildings or add more class rooms so they can reduce class size. A few weeks ago I visited a school in Des Moines where students attend class in closets because there is no room. This is simply unacceptable. In closing, I would like to share a few words from Tunisia, Washington, D.C. fifth grader in Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities.'' It's like this. The school is dirty. There isn't any playground. There's a hole in the wall behind the principal's desk. What we need to do is first rebuild the school. Build a playground. Plant a lot of flowers. Paint the classrooms. Fix the hole in the principal's office. Buy doors for the toilet stalls in the girl's bathroom. Make it a beautiful clean building. Make it pretty. Way it is, I feel ashamed. Our amendment will make it possible to rebuild her schools. It will make it possible to fix the hole in the wall, put doors on the bathroom stalls and paint the classrooms. By modernizing and repairing Tunisia's schools we will make her feel a little less ashamed of herself and her school. This is a serious national problem. And it demands a comprehensive national response. Our amendment is that response and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the pending amendment with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb. Senator Robb has truly been one of the educational leaders over his tenure in the Senate. He has shown great leadership especially in this area that is so important as we are reducing class sizes around the country. I have visited schools in Iowa and other States recently where, because of the reduction of class sizes, they are out of room; they need more space. And we know the average school building in this country is 42 years old; 74 percent of our schools were built before 1970. The Robb amendment addresses this very critical need in our country. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I congratulate him for his very strong leadership in the whole area of education but especially in the area of modernizing and rebuilding our schools.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we will be introducing the Public School Repair and Renovation Act. This legislation will authorize $1.3 billion in grants and no interest loans to enable school districts to make urgent repairs at our nation's public schools. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Robb, Bingaman, Feinstein, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Dodd in cosponsoring this legislation in the Senate. The facts about the condition of our nation's schools are well known. The average age of the schools in this country is 42 years. 14 million children attend classes in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. The General Accounting Office reports we need $112 billion to just bring our schools up to overall good condition. How can kids prepare for the 21st century in schools that didn't even make the grade in the 20th century? It is a national disgrace that the nicest thing our kids see are shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown place they see is their school. What signal are we sending them about the value we place on them, their education and future? I was disturbed by the comments of Tunisia, a Washington, D.C. 5th grader in Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities.'' This is what she said. It's like this. The school is dirty. There isn't any playground. There's a hole in the wall behind the principal's desk. What we need to do is first rebuild the school. Build a playground. Plant a lot of flowers. Paint the classrooms. Fix the hole in the principal's office. Buy doors for the toilet stalls in the girl's bathroom. Make it a beautiful clean building. Make it pretty. Way it is, I feel ashamed. The legislation we are introducing would make it possible to fix the holes in the walls of Tunisia's school, put doors on the bathroom stalls and paint the classrooms. These repairs would make Tunisia feel a little less ashamed of herself and of her school. This legislation is part of a comprehensive two-prong strategy to modernize our nation's schools. This bill complements our continuing effort to provide tax credits for new construction and modernization projects. We have advocated school modernization tax credits that would finance $25 billion in new construction or major renovations. The Public School Repair and Renovation Act will complement that effort and I urge my colleagues to support it.