Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Daschle, Baucus, Thomas, Conrad, Roberts, Grassley, Collins, and Frist in introducing a critical piece of legislation for America's rural communities, the ``Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999''. As co-chairs of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, Senator Thomas and I convened this bipartisan group last fall to craft a comprehensive rural health bill, building on the hard work of Senators Daschle and Baucus from the 105th Congress. I am very proud that today we are able to come together across party lines to introduce a bill that will improve the ability of rural Americans to access good quality health care. Today, the health care system in rural Iowa is on the verge of being admitted to an intensive care unit. Iowans living in small towns and rural areas are facing too many barriers to quality health care. But seniors living in New Hampton, Iowa, pay the same Medicare taxes as those who live in New York City--they should get the same quality health care. This bill aims to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in rural towns in Iowa and around the nation. Current formulas for Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals are biased towards urban areas. This bill raises payments for rural hospitals by making it easier for them to qualify for special designations. The bill also strengthens health professional recruitment programs, helps expand access to mental health services in rural areas, requires that rural areas be represented on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and expand the range of Medicare-reimbursed services that can be provided via telemedicine. Health care providers in rural areas like Iowa practice a conservative, cost-effective approach to health care. They should be rewarded for their resourcefulness, not penalized with unfair reimbursement rates. But Medicare payments to hospitals are currently based on formulas that give urban areas an advantage. This bill corrects these formulas so that hospitals can be paid more fairly. It also includes provisions specifically targeted to small, rural hospitals and the unique problems they face. In addition, the bill guarantees that Medicare+Choice plans in rural counties get the increased reimbursement promised in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This provision will help ensure that seniors in rural areas have some of the same health plan choices available to urban seniors. These changes will help to address some of the inequity that exists for Medicare managed care. And I will soon introduce legislation that will take the next critical step: fixing the inequity in Medicare fee-for-service. The vast majority of seniors living in rural areas will continue to receive their care through Medicare fee-for-service, yet the reimbursement rate for rural providers is woefully inadequate. My bill will address the imbalance between rural and urban fee-for-service rates, and I hope to introduce it in the next several weeks. Mr. President, the health care system in this country is undergoing dramatic changes and our rural health care infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with the new landscape. The bill we are introducing today is the product of a bipartisan commitment to make sure that rural Americans have access to the same high quality health care that all Americans have come to expect. I am proud to be a part of this effort.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for the assurance that we can offer this amendment later on. Again, this is an important amendment and we can't let it go too much longer. So I hope we will have some kind of banking bill this year. I hope it doesn't go into next year, because consumers are getting gouged. Most people don't carry more than $1,000 in their checking accounts and they are the ones who have to pay the fees. In all my life until just recently, checking accounts used to be free. Now if you have less than $1,000, you pay fees. Who has less than $1,000? It is the elderly, the low-income people; they have to pay the fees to keep the checking accounts. It is not fair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute and say goodbye to a long time friend, Father Ron Hennessey, whose recent passing is a great loss not only to his colleagues, his family, and his friends but to everyone who knew him. I'm saying goodbye to Father Ron, but we will never say goodbye to his heart, his spirit, or his soul. Father Ron was a native of Iowa and graduated from St. Patrick's High School in Ryan, Iowa. After graduating, he was drafted into the U.S. Army and served as a mechanic and later a Motor Sergeant in Korea. While in Korea, he was awarded three Bronze Stars for valor during his military service. Under the Eisenhower Christmas Program, he returned to the United States and was released from active service on December 9, 1953. He entered Maryknoll Junior Seminary in Pennsylvania and five years later graduated from Maryknoll College in Illinois in June of 1958. Father Hennessey was ordained at Maryknoll Seminary in New York on June 13, 1964. Father Ron devoted his life to international peace and justice, Mr. President, dedicating almost 35 years of his life as a Maryknoll priest in Central America. Much of this time was spent in Guatemala and El Salvador. Soon after being ordained, he was assigned to the Diocese of Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. Several years later, he became the Pastor in San Mateo Ixtatan, Guatemala. It is during this time that Father Hennessey became very involved in the human rights struggle of the local Mayan Indians. He placed himself in great danger by smuggling letters out of Guatemala detailing the atrocities committed against the Mayan Indians in his rural parish. Those atrocities, Father Ron wrote, were being committed by the Guatemalan military under the orders of President Rios Montt. I remember one letter in particular in which Father Ron listed 20 instances in his parish alone in which military forces committed gross acts of violence. Sadly, the United States Government at the time, supported this oppressive regime. In fact, our own State Department downplayed the human rights violations being committed in Guatemala, and in my view making us complicit in those heinous crimes. By shining the spotlight on these atrocities, Father Ron's life was in constant danger. But that did not stop him. He stayed in Guatemala until 1986 despite having three opportunities to leave. From Guatemala he went to El Salvador to re-establish a Maryknoll presence there after a five year absence. There he served in a parish on the outskirts of San Salvador that had had no priest since the Church was bombed in 1980. In 1989, when the Salvadoran military murdered six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter, Father Hennessey and his fellow Maryknollers chose to remain in the country even as scores of North American missionaries and aid workers decided to leave because the situation had become too dangerous for those who stood up for human rights and the rule of law. But Father Hennessey continued his work, standing side by side with his parishioners. Father Hennessey once again took up residence again in Guatemala in 1992 until earlier this year when he was assigned to the Maryknoll mission in Los Angeles. And so, Mr. President, Father Hennessey will be greatly missed by all of us. And while he may have physically departed, his spirit will never desert us. Which is the second reason I rise today, Mr. President--to affirm an ancient native American saying: To live in the hearts of those you love, is not to die. Father Ron, your spirit does live on through who knew you, whose lives you touched, and through them the countless thousands whose lives were enriched because of you. You will be remembered by us, each in a different way. Finally, Mr. President, I can think of no better way to remember my friend Father Ron than with the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero: I have no ambition of power, and so with complete freedom I tell the powerful what is good and what is bad, and I tell any political group what is good and what is bad. That is my duty.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Daschle, Baucus, Thomas, Conrad, Roberts, Grassley, Collins, and Frist in introducing a critical piece of legislation for America's rural communities, the ``Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999''. As co-chairs of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, Senator Thomas and I convened this bipartisan group last fall to craft a comprehensive rural health bill, building on the hard work of Senators Daschle and Baucus from the 105th Congress. I am very proud that today we are able to come together across party lines to introduce a bill that will improve the ability of rural Americans to access good quality health care. Today, the health care system in rural Iowa is on the verge of being admitted to an intensive care unit. Iowans living in small towns and rural areas are facing too many barriers to quality health care. But seniors living in New Hampton, Iowa, pay the same Medicare taxes as those who live in New York City--they should get the same quality health care. This bill aims to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in rural towns in Iowa and around the nation. Current formulas for Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals are biased towards urban areas. This bill raises payments for rural hospitals by making it easier for them to qualify for special designations. The bill also strengthens health professional recruitment programs, helps expand access to mental health services in rural areas, requires that rural areas be represented on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and expand the range of Medicare-reimbursed services that can be provided via telemedicine. Health care providers in rural areas like Iowa practice a conservative, cost-effective approach to health care. They should be rewarded for their resourcefulness, not penalized with unfair reimbursement rates. But Medicare payments to hospitals are currently based on formulas that give urban areas an advantage. This bill corrects these formulas so that hospitals can be paid more fairly. It also includes provisions specifically targeted to small, rural hospitals and the unique problems they face. In addition, the bill guarantees that Medicare+Choice plans in rural counties get the increased reimbursement promised in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This provision will help ensure that seniors in rural areas have some of the same health plan choices available to urban seniors. These changes will help to address some of the inequity that exists for Medicare managed care. And I will soon introduce legislation that will take the next critical step: fixing the inequity in Medicare fee-for-service. The vast majority of seniors living in rural areas will continue to receive their care through Medicare fee-for-service, yet the reimbursement rate for rural providers is woefully inadequate. My bill will address the imbalance between rural and urban fee-for-service rates, and I hope to introduce it in the next several weeks. Mr. President, the health care system in this country is undergoing dramatic changes and our rural health care infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with the new landscape. The bill we are introducing today is the product of a bipartisan commitment to make sure that rural Americans have access to the same high quality health care that all Americans have come to expect. I am proud to be a part of this effort.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for preserving current law with regard to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and striking the provisions of S. 900 which will harm this important and worthwhile program. CRA was enacted in 1977 to help prevent ``redlining'' of poor neighborhoods by banks, which denied loans to residents and businesses in those areas. For more than twenty years, CRA has been a key means of increasing capital and credit to underdeveloped areas through market based loans. CRA has created jobs and contributed to the economic revitalization of many depressed urban and rural areas. It has been a force for the capital needed to increase home ownership and business development. CRA has contributed greatly toward the revitalization of many areas, helping to generate an estimated one trillion dollars in lending over 22 years. Put simply, CRA is good public policy. Mr. President, community groups, housing groups, farm groups, minority groups, civil rights groups, mayors and rural organizations all support a vibrant CRA and are opposed to S. 900's CRA provisions. In my State of Iowa, many rural residents remain in desperate need of affordable capital, especially during the farm crisis gripping the mid- West. Under S. 900, as it is now written, 276 of the 325 banks and thrifts in rural Iowa counties would be exempt from CRA requirements. That's 85 percent of all the rural banks in Iowa. If the provision exempting banks under 100 million dollars in assets remains, the benefits of CRA would not be available to a large share of the rural communities in Iowa. I have here a letter from the Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless, which describes the importance CRA has for our communities. It reads, in part, ``Through increasing the access to capital and credit, CRA provides a market-based solution for economic revitalization and even job creation. A strong and vibrant CRA has meant that hundreds of billions worth of new home mortgage loans and small business loans have been made in low and moderate income, urban and rural communities throughout the country in the past several years.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would just like to mention briefly the CRA reforms already in place to protect small and rural banks. In 1995, new regulations dramatically simplified the CRA exam process for small banks under 250 million dollars in assets. Under the new rules, small banks are not subject to the lending, investment and service tests applied to large institutions. Additionally, for small banks, examiners look at only five factors: loan to deposit ratio; percentage of loans inside bank's CRA assessment area; record of lending to borrowers of different income levels and businesses of different sizes; geographic distribution of loans; and a bank's record of taking action in response to written complaints about its CRA performance. Finally, small banks are not subject to any data collection requirements for CRA. So, we have already addressed these issues. This Senator would certainly welcome hearings on the current state of those reforms and their effectiveness. In fact, I would ask the Banking Chairman to consider holding such hearings on CRA before we make changes to an important and effective program. Mr. President, CRA has provided jobs, helped our economy to grow, and ensured all of our citizens are considered for loans based on their financial history, not their address. I urge all my colleagues to support removal of these provisions. Exhibit 1 Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless, Des Moines, IA, May 3, 1999. Rep. Tom Latham, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Latham: As organizations that work with and on behalf of low-income and homeless individuals, we join today to share our concerns regarding the proposed financial modernization legislation currently being considered in Congress. By combating discrimination and promoting bank- community partnerships, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) extends the American dream of home and small business ownership to millions of Americans. Without this sustained access to capital and credit, our neighborhoods die. We ask that you support a strong CRA and the benefits it has brought our communities. Through increasing the access to capital and credit, CRA provides a market-based solution for economic revitalization and even job creation. A strong and vibrant CRA has meant that hundreds of billions worth of new home mortgage loans and small business loans have been made in the low- and moderate-income urban and rural communities throughout the country in the past several years. Any bill that threatens to eviscerate the effectiveness and application of CRA will only destroy this promotion of wealth creation and entrepreneurial development in minority and working-class neighborhoods. While the various versions of financial modernization that have been introduced and contemplated may not directly attack CRA, they will eventually undermine the law by preventing its evolution with the rapid changes in the financial industry. The current versions of financial modernization only demonstrate its fundamental problem: the ability of financial conglomerates to offer loans through their holding company affiliates, without having to conform to CRA requirements. Stated simply, holding companies will be able to shift assets from CRA-covered banks to mortgage and insurance companies, securities firms, and other institutions exempt from CRA-like requirements. Banks, therefore, will be left with fewer resources with which to make affordable housing economic development, and small business loans. If any financial modernization bill fails to extend CRA to the lending and bank services activities of mortgage companies and other non-depository affiliates, CRA will cover an ever- shrinking amount of traditional banking products and services. In addition to the expansion of CRA, financial modernization could further serve low-income consumers if it improved upon data disclosure requirements. Such data disclosure requirements help communities identify missed market opportunities and eliminate discriminatory practices. These requirements help leverage reinvestment by making financial institutions publicly accountable to serve all borrowers in a fair and equitable manner. Insurance companies and others affiliating with banks should be required to report data on policies and services issued by income and race and small business data should include the race and gender of the borrower as well as the neighborhood in which the business is located. We would also urge you to fight attempts to directly attack or weaken CRA; specifically, proposals such as safe harbors, small bank exemptions, and ``anti-greenmail'' bills or amendments. Mergers and acquisitions can disrupt the lives of thousands of citizens in a community through job losses, closing of offices, decreases in lending, and higher fees. CRA reviews are critical to ensure that lenders involved in mergers can preserve their CRA performance after such enormous institutional changes. Moreover, affected citizens ought to have the right to speak up and have their concerns addressed before a merger application is approved, regardless of the pre-merger CRA ratings. Small bank exemptions would also be extremely harmful to communities because they eliminate community reinvestment requirements for most of the banks in the country. Small towns and rural areas that depend on these banks for home and small business lending would only suffer a new round of credit and capital flight. as proposed, the current legislation would exempt small rural banks under $100 million in assets from CRA altogether. Almost 40% of all lenders in the country will then have no obligation to serve minority and working-class neighborhoods. Seventy-two percent of all rural banks would be exempt from CRA. In Iowa, this exemption would include 85% of the lenders in non-metropolitan areas, many of whom enjoy a near monopoly in their service areas. It would be detrimental to the wealth-building efforts in this country to pass a financial modernization bill that would halt community reinvestment progress by failing to keep CRA on pace with the evolution in the financial industry. Congress has required that banks serve ``the convenience and needs'' of the communities in which they are chartered because of the vital role they play in our lives. We believe that this same standard should be applied to the entire financial industry. A financial modernization bill that carefully modernizes the Community Reinvestment Act to the entire financial industry could have a profound effect in democratizing access to credit and capital accumulation tools in our society. Clearly, that would be good for America. Sincerely, Sandi Murphy, Policy Director. The organizations listed below support the position of the Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless and strongly encourage you to oppose the current financial modernization legislation and demand a strong, and protected, CRA. John Boyne, United Action for Youth, Street Outreach, Iowa City. Crissy Canganelli, Emergency Housing Project of Iowa City. Jan Capaccioli, Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Amy Covreia, Iowa City, Iowa. Mike Coverdale, Iowa Community Action Network. Bill Holvoet, Southeast Iowa Community Action. Greg Jaudon, Iowa Homeless Youth Centers. Gene Jones, Des Moines Coalition for the Homeless. Mike Kratz, Veteran Affairs Medical Center. Lora J. Morgan, Goodwill Industries of S.E. Iowa. Mark Patton, Muscatine Center for Strategic Action. Linda Severson, Johnson County LHCB. Lisa Wageman, Operation Threshold, Waterloo.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Frist, the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. Tne Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act would help States establish programs to detect and diagnose hearing loss in every newborn child and to promote appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. The Act would fund research by the National Institutes of Health to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention techniques and technologies. Every year, approximately 12,000 children in the United States are born with a hearing impairment. Most of them will not be diagnosed as hearing-impaired until after their second birthday. The consequences of not detecting early hearing impairment are significant, but easily avoidable. Late detection means that crucial years of stimulating the brain's hearing centers are lost. It may delay speech and language development. Delayed language development can retard a child's educational progress, minimize his or her socialization skills, and as a result, destroy his or her self-esteem and confidence. On top of all that, many children are diagnosed incorrectly as having behavioral or cognitive problems, simply because of their undetected hearing loss. In 1988, the Commission on Education of the Deaf reported to Congress that early detection, diagnosis and treatment were essential to improving the status of education for people who are deaf in the United States. Based on that report and others, in 1991, when I was chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations, we urged the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Deisorders--NIDCD--to determine the most effective means of identifying hearing impairments in newborn infants. In 1993, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee supported NIDCD's efforts to sponsor a consensus development conference on early identification of hearing impairment in infants and children. And in 1998, the Subcommittee encouraged NIDCD to pursue research on intervention strategies for infants with hearing impairments, and encouraged HRSA to provide states with the results of the NIH study on the most effective forms of screening infants for hearing loss. Mr. President, the Act we are introducing today builds on these earlier efforts. The Act would help states develop programs that many of them already are working on; it would not impose a single federal mandate. At least eight states already have mandatory testing programs; many others have legislation pending to establish such programs. Other states have achieved universal newborn testing voluntarily. These programs can work; they deserve federal help. One of the highlights of my Congressional career, indeed, of my life, has been working on policies and laws to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to succeed in our society. This is especially meaningful to me, because my brother Frank became deaf as a child. I watched Frank grow up, and I saw how few options and support services were available for people who were deaf. I remember the frustrations and challenges Frank faced, and I told myself early on that I would do all I could to break down the barriers in our society that prevented people who were deaf from reaching their potential. By supporting early screening, diagnosis, and treatment programs, this act would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I would like to thank Senators Snowe and Frist for their hard work and support of this act, and I hope our colleagues will join us in this worthy effort.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Frist, the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. Tne Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act would help States establish programs to detect and diagnose hearing loss in every newborn child and to promote appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. The Act would fund research by the National Institutes of Health to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention techniques and technologies. Every year, approximately 12,000 children in the United States are born with a hearing impairment. Most of them will not be diagnosed as hearing-impaired until after their second birthday. The consequences of not detecting early hearing impairment are significant, but easily avoidable. Late detection means that crucial years of stimulating the brain's hearing centers are lost. It may delay speech and language development. Delayed language development can retard a child's educational progress, minimize his or her socialization skills, and as a result, destroy his or her self-esteem and confidence. On top of all that, many children are diagnosed incorrectly as having behavioral or cognitive problems, simply because of their undetected hearing loss. In 1988, the Commission on Education of the Deaf reported to Congress that early detection, diagnosis and treatment were essential to improving the status of education for people who are deaf in the United States. Based on that report and others, in 1991, when I was chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations, we urged the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Deisorders--NIDCD--to determine the most effective means of identifying hearing impairments in newborn infants. In 1993, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee supported NIDCD's efforts to sponsor a consensus development conference on early identification of hearing impairment in infants and children. And in 1998, the Subcommittee encouraged NIDCD to pursue research on intervention strategies for infants with hearing impairments, and encouraged HRSA to provide states with the results of the NIH study on the most effective forms of screening infants for hearing loss. Mr. President, the Act we are introducing today builds on these earlier efforts. The Act would help states develop programs that many of them already are working on; it would not impose a single federal mandate. At least eight states already have mandatory testing programs; many others have legislation pending to establish such programs. Other states have achieved universal newborn testing voluntarily. These programs can work; they deserve federal help. One of the highlights of my Congressional career, indeed, of my life, has been working on policies and laws to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to succeed in our society. This is especially meaningful to me, because my brother Frank became deaf as a child. I watched Frank grow up, and I saw how few options and support services were available for people who were deaf. I remember the frustrations and challenges Frank faced, and I told myself early on that I would do all I could to break down the barriers in our society that prevented people who were deaf from reaching their potential. By supporting early screening, diagnosis, and treatment programs, this act would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I would like to thank Senators Snowe and Frist for their hard work and support of this act, and I hope our colleagues will join us in this worthy effort.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Congressional Gold Medal is among the most distinguished honors that Congress can bestow on individuals in recognition of their work or accomplishments. Since 1776, this award, initially reserved for military leaders, has also been given to such diverse individuals as Sir Winston Churchill, Charles Lindbergh and Mother Teresa. Rosa Parks is not a military hero, not a head of state, explorer or adventurer. On December 1, 1955, she was a seamstress on her way to work, who took a seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. For that simple action of sitting on a bus, she was arrested, sent to jail, and convicted of what city laws called a crime and lost her job. Rosa Parks is a living example of how an extraordinary person, engaged in the ordinary matters of life, can change the world. The day that Ms. Parks refused to surrender her seat to a white man symbolizes the beginning of the modern civil rights movement. Her arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for a mass boycott of the city's buses, whose rider ship had been 70 percent black. The boycott led to the national prominence of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and to a Supreme Court order declaring Montgomery County's segregated seating laws unconstitutional. Ms. Parks, known now as the ``first lady of civil rights,'' later said, ``I felt just resigned to give what I could to protest against the way I was being treated.'' Rosa Parks had been involved in the civil rights movement years before the bus incident and her efforts continued long afterward. She was one of the first female members of the Montgomery Chapter of the NAACP, she joined the Montgomery Voters League and encouraged blacks to register to vote. Despite her civil rights work, Rosa Parks on that historic day actually followed the degrading rules that reserved the first ten seats were reserved for ``whites only.'' If those rows filled up, blacks were supposed to move even further back. Parks, who was sitting just beyond the 10th row, refused to move and the arrest, the conviction and the winning appeal followed. All she had asked for was the basic respect and simple dignity of not being forced to give up her seat to a white man. Rosa Parks actions and her determination to preserve her dignity spread throughout the nation and sparked the end of segregation in the South. She hasn't stopped since. In 1957, she moved to Detroit where she worked for nonviolent social change with Martin Luther King Jr's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. She worked for Congressman John Conyers and in 1987 she founded an institute to provide leadership and career training to black youth. Forty-four years after that historic day in Montgomery, she continues to speak out on civil rights issues. We have heard the ``first lady of civil rights'' story over and over again throughout the years and it will own a permanent place in our history books. But we need to keep listening and reminding ourselves of the extraordinary courage and determination that this working woman had to win the most basic rights that everyone in our nation deserves. She serves as a model and inspiration for what each of us can do in our everyday lives toward greater respect, dignity and kindness among humankind. I urge my colleagues to join me in bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal to ``the mother of the freedom movement.''

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bridge obvious gaps in the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables. This legislation will establish basic standards of sanitation for processed fruits and vegetables, simple standards that will help assure that Americans can enjoy these foods safely. American families are on the front lines of this food safety battle three times a day--breakfast, lunch and dinner. Health experts advise us to eat at least five servings a day of fresh fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy lifestyle. Studies show these foods can cut our risks of cancer and heart disease. Americans have listened, and our consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables has grown every year. We can now find a variety of out-of-season produce, imported and exotic foods. We also enjoy convenience foods, ready-to-eat mixed salads, sprouts, mixed juices, a variety of frozen berries, dried spices, and other treats unavailable a few decades ago. Americans can buy produce that is the safest in the world, and food safety problems from produce are rare. But these problems can be devastating for victims, and consumers are demanding stronger laws to protect themselves from food borne illness. Since 1990, more than 40 outbreaks of foodborne illness have been linked to fresh fruit, vegetable and juice products consumed in the United States. More than 6300 illnesses were reported, with victims in almost all 50 states. Domestic melons, imported strawberries, lettuce, sprouts and orange juice each took their toll. Processed or ready-to-eat produce may be more easily contaminated because it is handled extensively, cut up and rinsed, and then is eaten by the consumer without further preparation. It is essential that the processor handle these foods safely, because there is nothing the consumer can do once these products are contaminated. This bill will improve the safety of these products by requiring that they are always processed under sanitary conditions. These are the same conditions you would use in your own kitchen, and should expect from a processor. The guidelines are simple; that rinse water be clean and sewage be kept away from the food, that workers can and do wash their hands, that flies, birds and rodents be kept out of the processing plant. Under the bill provisions, FDA will inspect processors, domestic and importing, annually, to be sure they are following sanitary guidelines. FDA will also coordinate with other food safety agencies to develop research programs aimed at setting standards for safe agricultural practices for produce, and for testing methods that can verify that fruit or vegetable products has been processed safely. Last August, the National Academy of Sciences, in evaluating the federal food safety system, advised that food safety agencies be able to ``mandate minimum sanitation standards for food.'' Food safety should be a requirement--not a suggestion. We have had basic sanitation standards in place for meat and poultry for 93 years. FDA needs strong mandatory sanitation guidelines for produce. My bill would establish basic sanitation standards for processed fruits and vegetables. Most processors in the US are already following these reasonable standards, and are keeping their products safe. This bill will bring everyone up to par domestically, and allow FDA to address produce sanitation problems in importing countries. Agriculture is clearly our nation's largest employer, providing jobs for millions from the farm to the corner markets. Agricultural communities cannot afford to have the American public question the safety of the food in their grocery stores. This is not just a public health issue, it is also an economic issue. I believe these simple standards of cleanliness are reasonable, are long overdue, and will help assure that Americans can safely make these foods a part of every meal.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues-- Senator Lautenberg and Senator Robb in sponsoring this important amendment which calls on Congress to pass legislation to fix our Nation's crumbling schools. The condition of our Nation's schools is well known--they are in deplorable condition. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on the condition of America's infrastructure. The report made it clear that the physical infrastructure in this country is in dire need. However, the only area that warranted a failing grade was education. The group was concerned about the condition of things like our roads, bridges, and wastewater systems. But the only area that was deemed inadequate is education. It is clear we must place repair of our nation's schools at the top of our Nation's priority list. There are 14 million children--almost 5 times the number of people in all of Iowa--that are attending classes in buildings that are literally falling down around them. The General Accounting Office tells us that we need $112 billion to modernize our Nation's schools to bring them to good overall condition. The Civil Engineers also say we need $60 billion in new construction to accommodate increasing enrollments. This is a serious problem, and one that is not getting better. As a matter of fact, every day we delay, it gets worse and will cost more money to address. Iowa State University conducted a comprehensive survey on the condition of schools in Iowa. In 1995 the estimated cost over the next 10 years was $3.4 billion. Two years later it was $4 billion and I would guess that if the study were updated for 1999 we would find that the cost has increased even more. There are many that say this is a local problem and federal support is unwarranted and unwise. All across this country school districts are struggling to repair and upgrade their facilities because the cost is enormous. It is simply unacceptable that we tolerate this situation. It is unconscionable that children in this country go to school in buildings where the plumbing doesn't work, the windows are broken, and the roofs leak. This amendment calls on Congress to enact legislation to provide a comprehensive strategy to modernize our Nation's schools. First, we must pass legislation to provide funding for the Education Infrastructure Act. This is an existing federal program which has been on the books since 1994. During each of the last two years, the Senate has passed legislation which included my proposal to appropriate $100 million for this program. Unfortunately, we have been unable to hold the funds in conference with the House. We must redouble our efforts to provide funding for this grant program to assist needy school districts and the resolution calls on our to make this investment. Second, the amendment calls on Congress to pass legislation to provide at least $24.8 billion in tax credits to holders of school construction bonds. These tax credits will make it possible for school districts to build and renovate school facilities at a reduced cost because the holder of the bond would receive a federal tax credit in lieu of interest. Mr. President, We have high expectations for our children. We want them to be the best in the world--to reach the highest academic standards. But then we ask them to attend class in buildings that just don't make the grade--in buildings that are not equipped to provide a quality 21st century education. We must enact legislation now to remedy this situation and I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I thank him for his leadership on this amendment, and I thank our Democratic leader also for his leadership. Mr. President, last Saturday was National Agriculture Day. Each year on the first day of spring, we celebrate the success and the accomplishment of American agriculture. U.S. consumers today spend less than any country in the world, as a percent of their disposable income, on food. Nine cents out of a dollar, that is all. Think about this, the productivity of American farmers, what it has done for us. In the 1960s, one farmer in America supplied food for 25 people. Now they supply food for over 130 people. Tremendous. Isn't it a cruel irony that we set aside the first day of spring every year to recognize agriculture and the American farmer, yet tens of thousands of American farm families are going under right now? They are on the verge of losing their livelihoods and their life savings. It is devastation in the agricultural sector. What this amendment basically says is that with the expected budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 and greater surpluses in years to follow, we will apply $6 billion of that extra surplus to putting a safety net underneath agriculture. In other words, if we have extra money in the years 2000 to 2004, that money will be made available to agriculture. Of course, if the farm economy improved, then it wouldn't be needed. This chart here kind of tells it all. People say, why do you need $6 billion? Here is last year, 1998. This is all of the farm income; that is, the crop receipts, their AMTA payments, their aid, their loan deficiency payments--$69.5 billion. Expected this year, $64 billion. That is about a $5 billion, $5.5 to $6 billion decrease. But last year this was 17 percent lower than the average 5 years before. This year it is expected to be 27 percent less in income for farmers. That is why this amendment is sorely needed. Those who have much in our society, to whom the Republicans want to give these tax breaks, they are doing well. They are doing well on Wall Street. They are doing well in Palm Beach. They are doing well on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. In the farm sector of America, our families are struggling to survive. All we are asking for is a decent safety net. That is why this amendment is sorely needed.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at first glance, the pending budget appears to place a high priority on education. The resolution invests more money than proposed by President Clinton and highlights increases for elementary and secondary education. This stands in sharp contrast to previous Republican budgets that slashed funding for vital discretionary education programs, cut college loans and called for elimination of the Department of Education. In some respects, this budget is a welcome change. To highlight elementary and secondary education, the resolution takes the unusual step of providing so-called ``sub-function'' allocations to prominently display the proposed increases for K-12 education. In addition, the resolution calls for an investment of $2.5 billion in special education over the next five years. That sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, a closer examination of the budget exposes serious flaws. On the one hand, the budget touts increases for K-12 schools but plays down the sobering fact that the only way to accomplish that objective is to cut other important education and training programs. Cuts, or in the best case scenario, freezes college grants. Denies 100,000 children Head Start services. Eliminates 73,000 young people from the summer jobs program. Makes it impossible for 102,000 dislocated workers to get the training they need to get new jobs. Unlike previous GOP budgets that launched a frontal assault on education, this budget is a stealth attack. The rhetoric touts education, but the details will spell disaster. That is why we are offering this amendment to fully fund two critically important education programs--special education and the class size reduction act. The amendment will enable us to meet two important goals. First, we will make sure there is full funding for these two initiatives. IDEA will be fully funded for the first time ever and we will meet our national goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size. Second, by providing this mandatory stream of funding, the amendment will free up precious discretionary funds that could be invested in other important national priorities such as college grants, Head Start, Title I, education technology and job training. The amendment is fully offset by reducing the tax breaks by 20%. That still leaves plenty of room for tax cuts for working families. We must renew the bipartisan effort we began last fall to reduce class size. Research has shown that smaller class sizes make a difference. Teachers are able to provide more personalized attention for students and have to spend less time on discipline. As a result, students do better and learn more. We got off to a good start last fall by enacting legislation as part of the omnibus appropriations bill for the first year of the seven year class size initiative. This amendment would enable us to finish the job and fully fund the initiative. The amendment also invests in IDEA. 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, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional obligations. When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state award as the number of children served under the special education law times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure. Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7% of the national average per pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA. Congress needs to do much more to help and this amendment would fully fund this program for the first time. As an editorial in the March 15 edition of the New York Times explained, ``Educating disabled youngsters is a national responsibility. The expense should be borne on the nation as a whole, not imposed haphazardly on stated or financially strapped districts that happen to serve a large number of disabled students.'' As the ranking member on the education appropriations subcommittee, I am acutely aware of all the things we are unable to do because we do not have sufficient resources to invest. An added benefit of this amendment is to provide $43 billion for education and training programs over the next 10 years. Mr. President, this amendment will place education at the top of the national priority list and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the early seventies, two landmark federal district court cases--PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Mills v. 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, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional obligations. When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state award as the number of children served under the special education law times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure. Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7% of the national average per pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA. Congress needs to do much more to help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. Indeed, whenever I go home to Iowa, I am besieged by requests for additional federal funding for special education. These requests increased in intensity following the Supreme Court decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. That decision reaffirmed the court's longstanding interpretation that schools must provide those health-related services necessary to allow a child with a disability to remain in school. This is a terribly important decision, which reaffirms that all children with disabilities have the right to a meaningful education. As Justice Stevens wrote, ``under the statute, [Supreme Court] precedent, and the purpose of the IDEA, the District must fund such ``related services'' in order to help guarantee that students like Garrett are integrated into the public schools.'' The child in this case, Garrett Frey, happens to come from Iowa. He is friendly bright, articulate young man, who is also quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent. Twenty years ago, he probably would have been shunted off to an institution, at a terrible cost to taxpayers. Instead, he is thriving as a high school student, and will most likely go off to college and become a hard-working, tax paying citizen. An editorial in USA Today summed up the situation well. We've learned a lot about the costs of special education over the past 24 years. In addition to the savings realized when children can live at home with their families, we also know there are astronomical costs associated with not educating students with disabilities. Research shows that individuals who did not benefit from IDEA are almost twice as likely to not complete high school, not attend college and not get a job. The bottom line: Providing appropriate special education and related services to children saves government hundreds of thousands of dollars in dependency costs. The Garrett Frey decision, also 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 Garrett, is great. The pending amendment, of which I am pleased to cosponsor, would take two important steps. First, it would fully fund IDEA at the 40% goals. Secondly, the amendment would provide a mandatory stream of funding for this important program. Finally, the amendment is paid for by taking a portion of the funds set-aside for tax breaks and instead invest those funds in IDEA. Mr. President, my amendment would provide real money to help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. Local school districts should not have to bear the full costs of educating children with disabilities. Again, the USA Today editorial said it well. Let's be clear: The job of educating all our children is no small feat. But kids in special education and kids in ``gifted and talented'' programs are not to blame for tight resources. We, as a nation, must increase our commitment to a system of public education that has the capacity to meet the needs of all children, including children with disabilities. Of course, in providing increased funding for IDEA, we must make sure we do not do so at the expense of other equally important education programs. We need to fully fund Head Start so that all children start school ready to learn. We need to fully fund Title I so that all children get the extra help they need in reading and math. We need to fully fund Pell Grants so that all students have a chance to go to college. There are many other important education initiatives, such as reducing class size, improving teacher training, and modernizing our crumbling schools, that will also help children with disabilities. Finally, I'd like to point out that when we reauthorized IDEA in 1997, we made clear that the cost of serving students with disabilities should fall not just on school districts, but should be shared by all responsive state agencies, including state Medicaid agencies and state health departments. While Garrett does not qualify for any state programs, many children in his situation do, and the school districts can and should avail themselves of that money. Mr. President, this amendment is about setting rational national priorities. We must make education our nation's top priority since the real threat to our national security is an inability to compete in the global marketplace. We must have the best-educated, most-skilled, healthiest workers in the world to secure our nation's future. Investments in education are essential if we are to reach that goal. The amendment targets one important area--special education--and fully funds this important program. As an editorial in the March 15 edition of the New York Times explained, ``Educating disabled youngsters is a national responsibility. The expense should be borne on the nation as a whole, not imposed haphazardly on states or financially strapped districts that happen to serve a large number of disabled students.'' By providing these additional resources for special education, we would free up funds both here and in local school districts for other important education priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to fully fund IDEA by reducing tax breaks in the budget. amendment no. 200 (Purpose: To allow increased tobacco tax revenues to be used as an offset for the Medicare prescription drug benefit provided for in section 209) On page 53, line 4, after ``may change committee allocations'' insert ``, revenue aggregates for legislation that increases taxes on tobacco or tobacco products (only),''. amendment no. 201 (Purpose: To fund a 40 percent Federal share for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the amendment reduces the resolution's tax cut by nearly one fifth, frees up $43 billion in discretionary spending within Function 500 (in 2001-2009) for other important education programs, and leaves adequate room in the revenue reconciliation instructions for targeted tax cuts that help those in need and tax breaks for communities to modernize and rebuild crumbling schools) On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, line 14, and insert the following: (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution-- (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows: Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000. Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,033,000,000. Fiscal year 2002: $1,466,653,000,000. Fiscal year 2003: $1,547,102,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $1,602,574,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,629,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $1,700,594,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $1,755,630,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $1,826,369,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $1,890,274,000,000. (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are as follows: Fiscal year 2000: $0. Fiscal year 2001: -$6,614,000,000. Fiscal year 2002: -$41,623,000,000. Fiscal year 2003: -$16,216,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: -$31,574,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: -$44,267,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: -$90,119,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: -$115,770,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: -$129,840,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: -$155,436,000,000. (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows: Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000. Fiscal year 2001: $1,472,665,000,000. Fiscal year 2002: $1,504,559,000,000. Fiscal year 2003: $1,578,337,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $1,630,879,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $1,685,232,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $1,717,635,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $1,773,679,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $1,835,769,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $1,896,955,000,000. (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows: Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000. Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,033,000,000. Fiscal year 2002: $1,466,653,000,000. Fiscal year 2003: $1,547,102,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $1,599,675,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $1,656,798,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $1,685,764,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $1,735,867,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $1,801,549,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $1,862,458,000,000. On page 23, strike beginning with line 14 through page 25, line 3, and insert the following: Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $67,373,000,000. (B) Outlays, $63,994,000,000. Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $82,920,000,000. (B) Outlays, $66,174,000,000. Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $84,377,000,000. (B) Outlays, $77,532,000,000. Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $91,158,000,000. (B) Outlays, $84,618,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: (A) New budget authority, $95,249,000,000. (B) Outlays, $90,059,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: (A) New budget authority, $96,853,000,000. (B) Outlays, $94,261,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000. (B) Outlays, $96,345,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: (A) New budget authority, $100,245,000,000. (B) Outlays, $98,103,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $102,174,000,000. (B) Outlays, $99,961,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $103,037,000,000. (B) Outlays, $100,818,000,000. On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the following: (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 2000, $96,028,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $631,461,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009; and amendment no. 202 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding funding for embassy security) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional obligations. When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state award as the number of children served under the special education law times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure. Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA. Congress needs to do much more to help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. Indeed, whenever I go home to Iowa, I am besieged by requests for additional federal funding for special education. These requests increased in intensity following the Supreme Court decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District versus Garrett F. That decision reaffirmed the court's long-standing interpretation that schools must provide those health-related services necessary to allow a child with a disability to remain in school. This is a terribly important decision, which reaffirms that all children with disabilities have the right to a meaningful education. As Justice Stevens wrote, ``Under the statute, [Supreme Court] precedent, and the purpose of the IDEA, the District must fund such `related services' in order to help guarantee that students like Garret are integrated into the public schools.'' The child in this case, Garret Frey, happens to come from Iowa. He is a friendly, bright, articulate young man, who is also quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent. Twenty years ago, he probably would have been shunted off to an institution, at a terrible cost to taxpayers. Instead, he is thriving as a high school student, and will most likely go off to college and become a hard-working, tax paying citizen. An editorial in USA Today summed up the situation well. We've learned a lot about the costs of special education over the past 24 years. In addition to the savings realized when children can live at home with their families, we also know there are astronomical costs associated with not educating students with disabilities. Research shows that individuals who did not benefit from IDEA are almost twice as likely to not complete high school, not attend college and not get a job. The bottom line: Providing appropriate special education and related services to children saves government hundreds of thousands of dollars in dependency costs. The Garrett Frey decision, however, also 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 of educating other children with disabilities, like Garrett, is great. The pending amendment, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, would take two important steps. First, it would fully fund IDEA at the 40 percent goal. Secondly, the amendment would provide a mandatory stream of funding for this important program. Finally, the amendment is paid for by taking a portion of the funds set-aside for tax breaks and instead invest those funds in IDEA. Mr. President, my amendment would provide real money to help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. Local school districts should not have to bear the full costs of educating children with disabilities. Again, the USA Today editorial said it well. Let's be clear: The job of educating all children is no small feat. But kids in special education and kids in ``gifted and talented'' programs are not to blame for tight resources. We, as a nation, must increase our commitment to a system of public education that has the capacity to meet the needs of all children, including children with disabilities. Of course, in providing increased funding for IDEA, we must make sure we do not do so at the expense of other equally important education programs. We need to fully fund Head Start so that all children start school ready to learn. We need to fully fund Title I so that all children get the extra help they need in reading and math. We need to fully fund Pell Grants so that all students have a chance to go to college. There are many other important education initiatives, such as reducing class size, improving teacher training, and modernizing our crumbling schools, that will also help children with disabilities. Finally, I'd like to point out that when we reauthorized IDEA in 1977, we made clear that the cost of serving students with disabilities should fall not just on school districts, but should be shared by all responsible states agencies, including state Medicaid agencies and state health departments. While Garrett does not qualify for any state programs, many children in his situation do, and the school districts can and should avail themselves of that money. Mr. President, this amendment is about setting rational national priorities. We must make education our nation's top priority since the real threat to our national security is an inability to compete in the global marketplace. We must have the best-educated, most-skilled, healthiest workers in the world to secure our nation's future. Investments in education are essential if we are to reach that goal. The amendment targets one important area--special education--and fully funds this important program. As an editorial in the March 15 edition of the New York Times explained, ``Educating disabled youngsters is a national responsibility. The expense should be borne on the nation as a whole, not imposed haphazardly on states or financially strapped districts that happen to serve a large number of disabled students.'' By providing these additional resources for special education, we would free up funds both here and in local school districts for other important education priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to fully fund IDEA by reducing the tax breaks in the budget. elimination of marriage tax penalty and uniform across the board tax cuts

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That's right.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is perhaps no other form of discrimination that has as direct an impact on the day-to-day lives of workers as wage discrimination. A recent survey of working women found receiving fair pay is one of their top concerns. When women aren't paid what they're worth, we all get cheated. That's why we are introducing the Fair Pay Act of 1999--to ensure equal pay for work of equal value for all Americans. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits sex-based discrimination in compensation for doing the same job. However, this statute fails to address other major parts of the pay equity problem such as job segregation. Current law has not reached far enough to combat wage discrimination when employers routinely pay lower wages to jobs that are dominated by women. More than 30 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women's wages still seriously lag behind their male counterparts' wages. The central problem is that we continue to undervalue and underpay work done by women. The Fair Pay Act is designed to pick up where the Equal Pay Act left off. The heart of the bill seeks to eliminate wage discrimination based upon sex, race or national origin. This important legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against women and minorities by paying them less in jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. The Fair Pay Act would apply to each company individually and would prohibit companies from reducing other employees' wages to achieve pay equity. Seven states have passed and implemented laws to close the wage gap for state employees and they didn't go bankrupt doing it. Canada also passed similar pay equity laws that apply to both the government and private sectors. Wage gaps can result from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce and the Fair Pay Act in no way interferes with that. But just as there is a glass ceiling in the American workplace, there is also a ``Glass Wall'' encountered by women who have similar skills and have the similar responsibilities as their male counterparts, but still do not receive the same pay. For example, a study of Los Angeles County employees showed social workers were paid $35,000 a year while probation officers were paid $55,000. That's a $20,000 difference, although the jobs required similar skills, education and working conditions. This is what the Fair Pay Act aims to fix. A February 1999 report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research and the AFL-CIO found that families lose an average of $3,446 a year because of unequal pay in female-dominated jobs. That's $420,000 over a lifetime of the average woman. Mr. President, persistent wage gaps for working women and people of color and the earnings inequality these gaps connote translate into lower pay, less family income and more poverty for working families. The solution, long overdue, is fair pay for women and minority workers. Please join us in support of Fair Pay Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time for Senator Specter in the morning, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me close by saying that we went on record 98-0 to double the NIH budget over the next 5 years. Last year, Senator Specter and I and others were able to put that 15-percent increase in there to get us on that road. This budget this year pulls the rug out from under that. The people of America want us to invest in medical research. They want us to double the NIH budget. They believe it is important. In a recent poll taken of the American people, more than 67 percent support doubling the research budget at NIH; 85 percent said it is important for us to maintain our leadership in medical research; 61 percent of the American people polled said they would be willing to pay $1 more a week in taxes to increase health research. The support is there. There is no reason why the tobacco companies ought to be able to deduct from their Federal taxes the money that they are giving to the States in that settlement. They wrote it in that agreement, but that does not bind us. This amendment does not violate the agreement. What it does is it saves the American taxpayers over $70 billion that they will have to pay to save the tobacco companies their money. This amendment also saves Medicare--by putting this money into medical research to help solve the diseases of Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, arthritis, and diabetes. If you want to save Medicare, adopt the Specter amendment. If you want to save the taxpayers money, adopt the Specter amendment. If you want to save peoples' lives, adopt the Specter amendment. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I am pleased to join my chairman, Senator Specter, in offering this amendment. Two years ago, the Senate went on record, 98 to 0, committing to double the NIH budget over 5 years. Last year, Senator Specter and I were able to make good on that pledge by providing the biggest increase ever for medical research. We worked hard to make it happen. I thank all my Senate colleagues for working with us on that historic accomplishment. The omnibus appropriations bill for this year contains a $2 billion, or a 15-percent, increase for the National Institutes of Health. That 15 percent puts us on track to meet our commitment to double the NIH budget for 5 years, which, I repeat, was voted on here 98 to 0. Unfortunately, if we pass this budget resolution as it is, we will fall far short of the 15-percent increase necessary to maintain that commitment. This budget resolution shortchanges Americans' health and shortchanges our efforts to control health care costs and keep Medicare solvent in the long run. At the same time that this budget shortchanges basic investments in health care, the budget before us increases the Pentagon budget by $18 billion--$8.3 billion more than the President's request--to defend America against some ill-defined international threat. What this budget should do is spend at least $2 billion more to defend us against the very real threats here at home every day --the threat of cancer, the threat of Alzheimer's, the threat of diabetes, the threat of osteoporosis. Recently, under the leadership of Senator Specter, we had a hearing, and one of our witnesses was Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf. He was in town to urge Congress to increase its investment in medical research. He understands better than most that we cannot mount a strong defense without adequate resources. While we made some progress last year, we still have a long way to go. Under the budget before us, NIH will only be able to fund about one in four meritorious research proposals. Those are research proposals that have gone through the peer review process deemed worthy of investigation. Only one in four will be funded. In the next 30 years, the number of Americans over age 65 will double. Medical research is essential to help reduce the enormous economic and social burdens posed by chronic diseases that impact our elderly from Alzheimer's and arthritis to cancer and Parkinson's and stroke. Take Alzheimer's disease. It alone costs the Nation over $100 billion a year. We know that simply delaying the onset by 5 years could save us over $50 billion a year. Delaying the onset of heart disease by 5 years would save over $69 billion a year. That is why I often say to my colleagues and others, if you really want to save Medicare, invest in medical research. That will take care of the looming deficit in Medicare. We are on the verge of breakthroughs in these and other areas. Now is the time to boost our investment to make sure that our Nation's top scientists can turn these opportunities into realities. In addition to funding more research grants, another area that is critical to making the breakthroughs we know are possible is making sure we have state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment. However, most of the research is currently being done in laboratories built in the 1950s and 1960s. According to the most recent National Science Foundation study, 47 percent of all biomedical research performing institutions classified the amount of biological science research space as inadequate, and 51 percent indicated they had an inadequate amount of medical research space. So the need is great. Our amendment is very simple. It ensures that the budget resolution will provide a $2 billion increase to the National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2000, and it is fully paid for. It is paid for by the very industry that has caused most of the death and disease in this country. As I said before, Mr. President, tobacco kills more Americans each year than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs, and fires all put together. Simply put, our amendment turns tobacco profits toward the cure for the cancer, emphysema, and heart disease that it causes. During the dealings that led to the tobacco settlements, the tobacco lawyers made sure that all the payments they made to the States would be considered ``normal and necessary business expenses.'' But there is nothing ordinary about this settlement. The tobacco industry has peddled a product that has killed millions of Americans through their deceptive advertising and sales practices. As a result of that loophole in the settlement, the tobacco industry can write off 35 percent of their entire settlement payment. That means American taxpayers, not big tobacco, will have to cough up as much as 35 percent of the cost, $2 billion this year alone, and continuing the next 25 years of the tobacco settlement. In effect, the tobacco settlement is a $70 billion tax on the American people. What our amendment says is that basically the tobacco companies will not be able to deduct from their Federal taxes the amount of money that they pay to the States for this settlement. The American people have paid enough. To make them pay an additional $70 billion to cover up for the tobacco companies' tax deductions for their settlements is adding insult to death and injury. Let me add one other thing, Mr. President. I have heard there is some misinformation floating out there about our amendment. Let me be clear. Our amendment would have absolutely no impact on the amount of settlement funds going to the States. The settlement has a clause that requires a dollar-for-dollar reduction in payments to the States if additional taxes are raised on tobacco and spent by the States, if the money is remitted to the States. Not one penny of the Specter amendment would go to the States but would all go to the National Institutes of Health. Therefore, it in no way violates that provision of the settlement. Mr. President, I have a letter dated today from the Congressional Research Service that makes it very clear that our amendment does not violate the master settlement agreement made between the States and tobacco companies. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President.

Mr. HARKIN. I believe I have the floor. I just hope this time is not running against my 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. I thought we had an hour at a time, and I thought the only person who spoke on it is Senator Specter. How much time do we have on our amendment?