Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to join with our committee Chair, Senator Jeffords, in reluctantly perhaps opposing the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. As I said in my opening remarks, Senator Gregg has been a leader on the issue ensuring that we had adequate funding to help the States and local school districts meet their constitutional obligations. However, again, as Chairman Jeffords said, this bill was a compromise worked out after long negotiations, and certainly there is nothing in the bill that would restrict us in any way from reaching the levels that Senator Gregg wants to reach in the future. So that the door is open. Hopefully we will find those resources that would enable us to help the States meet their obligations. So I join with the chairman in opposing the amendment. Mr. President, there was something else that was said. Again, my colleague, Senator Jeffords, responded adequately to it. But I would like to just add my remarks to buttress what Senator Jeffords said regarding the statement made by my friend, Senator Gregg, about this being some kind of unfunded mandate and falling under the unfunded mandate law of the Congress. Quite frankly, Mr. President, many people still have this concept that IDEA is an unfunded mandate. It is simply not correct. Again I want to set the record straight. Part B of IDEA is not an unfunded mandate. The notion that Congress imposed a mandate on the States and school districts to educate children with disabilities and then refused to pay for it is simply not the case. The truth is that the right of children with disabilities for free appropriate public education is a constitutional right. It is not something that we mandated here in Congress. It was established in the early 1970's, as I said earlier, by two landmark court cases-- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth, in 1971, and Mills versus Board of Education of the District of Columbia, in 1972. Again, these established the right. Basically, in my own view, what they said is, ``Look, if a State guarantees to its children a free public education, it can then not discriminate against other children because of disabilities.'' Again, the Constitution certainly wouldn't allow a State to say we are going to provide free public education to all children but only if they are caucasian. Obviously, the Supreme Court would strike that down in a minute; or, we are going to provide a free public education to all males but not females. They will strike that down in a minute, too. You can think of all kinds of scenarios. What has been happening in the past is we were providing a free public education to kids but not to kids with disabilities. And the courts said, ``Wait a minute. That falls under the same equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.'' So the courts struck it down. They said if the States provide that public education it can then not discriminate on the basis of disability. So it is not a mandate of Congress. It is a constitutional mandate. What Congress said was OK in 1974. Senator Jeffords was the leader at that time on the bill. But the Congress said it is OK. We understand that local school districts have a responsibility to provide a free and appropriate public education to disabled children. The Federal Government should help States meet their constitutional responsibility. And we set up the basic provisions of part B to make sure that the States meet the court judgments. As the Senate report stated, passage of the act, ``It is the intent of the Committee to establish and protect the right to education for all handicapped children and to provide assistance to the States in carrying out their responsibilities under State law and the Constitution of the United States to provide equal protection under the law.'' So again there is not an unfunded mandate of the Federal Government. Of course, again when the law was passed it was stated that the goal was for the Federal Government to eventually fund 40 percent of the cost. We are still down around 7 percent. So we have a long way to go to get to 40 percent. But again, that was never a requirement in law. It was a goal we set up. Again, I agree with Senator Gregg. It is a goal that we ought to be working toward. The Federal Government ought to provide greater assistance to local school districts to help them meet their constitutional responsibilities. We have a national goal. We have a national commitment to this. We ought to help solve that problem on a national basis. So, while I agree with Senator Gregg and his comments regarding trying to get the Federal role up, I do not agree with him that this is an unfunded mandate at all. The law and the record is clear on that. Also, IDEA is a program exempted from coverage under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That was also introduced I believe by Senator Gregg. That would fall under that act that we passed a couple of years ago. The Congressional Budget Office explicitly recognized this fact in the House and Senate report accompanying the bill. I will read this. This is from page 45 of the report. Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from consideration under that Act any bill that would ``establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of . . . handicap, or disability.'' S. 717 fits within that exclusion because it would ensure that the rights of children with disabilities are protected in the public education system. So clearly it does not fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. So, again, Mr. President, it is a good goal. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits us from meeting that goal. Hopefully those on the Appropriations Committee, of which I am one, will in the coming years ensure that the Federal Government meets more of the needs out there. I will not say ``obligation'' but ``meet'' more of the needs of what the Federal Government ought to be providing the States and local governments. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Tom Irvin, a detailee from the Department of Education to the Labor Committee staff, be accorded privileges during debate and amendments on this bill.

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

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, Mr. President, we just had a report from the Census Bureau which did a study that showed the employment population ratio for persons with severe disabilities increased from 23.3 percent in 1991, when ADA went into effect, to 26.1 in 1994, meaning there are 800,000 more severely disabled working in 1994 than in 1991, which is a 27-percent increase. So, again, I think what this Congress did with Public Law 94-142 in 1975, with the addition of part H in 1986, and then capped with the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, have not only made us a more decent and caring society, a more inclusive society, but in the long run it will save us money because we are putting the money in at the front end, getting these kids early intervention programs, good education, integrating them with people they will live with all their lives. I remember some years ago when my daughter was in public school, coming home and talking about how they had a couple of kids with disabilities in the classrooms, just like it was normal. They are there every day. These are people we live with all our lives. Rather than segregating them out, we bring them in and include them. Even though it may cost some upfront, the savings, if you look in hard economic terms, the savings are tremendous later on. Of course, that is not counting the quality of life, the independence, the ability of people to have a better life for themselves even though they may have disabilities. All in all, it is a great bill, and the reauthorization and the amendments we have added, I believe, meet a lot of the concerns people have, legitimate concerns. I hope and trust this will provide for a more cooperative framework for parents, teachers, school administrators, and local law enforcement officials to work together in a very cooperative spirit to ensure that all kids with disabilities have that right to a free and appropriate public education. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I do want to thank my colleague from Missouri for his long efforts to make sure that the law works and works well, not only on behalf of disabled students, but on behalf of all students. Certainly there is always room for discussion, debate, and trying to get a meeting of the minds and get people together on this. That is what I think we have done in this bill. As my friend from Missouri pointed out at the closure of his remarks, this does have a broad base of support, from the National School Boards Association, Parent-Teacher Association, school officers, disability rights groups. It has a broad base of support, cutting across all these lines, which I think indicates we have, indeed, through the leadership of Senator Jeffords, met our obligation to ensure that our constitutional requirements are fulfilled and at the same time to ensure that our schools are safe and conducive to learning for all students. I might just say to my friend from Missouri, about the case of which he spoke, about the tragic case of the young woman who was murdered, we had looked into that case in great detail. The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service looked into the facts of the case whether IDEA had any relevance at all to the case. I will, just for the record, read the last paragraph of their analysis of the tragic death of Christine Smetzer. It said: Although IDEA's provisions did not appear to be directly implicated by the factual pattern involved in Christine Smetzer's death, questions were raised concerning other laws, namely those involving the confidentiality of juvenile records. The youth charged in the case apparently had a juvenile police record which was unavailable to the school officials. This situation apparently led to the amendment of state statutes regarding juvenile crime. The new statute provides in part that the juvenile court can give school administrators information about past histories of delinquents upon request, and schools may suspend a student who has been charged or convicted of a felony in adult court. Just for my friend's knowledge, in our bill we address that. We said here--I want to read for the Record, and I am told Senator Ashcroft was responsible on our committee for putting this on the committee level. It says: Disciplinary Information. This is right on the point with this case I think. The State may require that a local educational agency include in the records of a child with a disability a statement of any current or previous disciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statement to the same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the student records of nondisabled children. The statement may include a description of any behavior engaged in by the child that required disciplinary action, a description of the disciplinary action taken, and any other information that is relevant to the safety of the child and other individuals involved with the child. If the State adopts such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include [must include] both the child's current individualized education program and any such statement of current or previous disciplinary action that has been taken against the child. So I hope that reaches this tragic case. I hope that would settle it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 717, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. On February 20, 1997, a bipartisan, bicameral working group was established to develop a bill reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. The working group included a representative from the Department of Education, Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and congressional staff representing Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Coats, Harkin, Frist, and Dodd; and Representatives Goodling, Martinez, Riggs, Miller, Castle, and Scott. The facilitator of the group was David Hoppe, the majority leader's chief of staff. The mission of the working group was to review, strengthen, and improve IDEA to better educate children with disabilities, and enable them to receive a quality education. With this mission in mind, the group agreed to start with current law and build on the actions, experiences, information, and research gathered over the life of the law, particularly over the past 3 years. The group further agreed that it must distinguish between problems of implementation and problems with the law, and respond appropriately, according to the issue raised. After 10 weeks of marathon negotiations, an agreement was reached on all outstanding issues. S. 717 is the outcome of this effort. Mr. President, IDEA is a powerful civil rights law with a long and successful history. More than 20 years ago, Congress passed Public Law 94-142, a law that gave new promises, and new guarantees, to disabled children and their parents under part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, now known as IDEA. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system, and more than half of all disabled children in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services that would enable them to enjoy full equality of opportunity. On that day in 1975, when Public Law 94-142 was enacted, we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children with disabilities and their families, we exclaimed that the days of exclusion, segregation, and denial of educational opportunity were over in this country. We recognized that the right of disabled children to a free appropriate public education is a constitutional right established in the early 1970's by two landmark Federal district court cases-- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth in 1971 and Mills versus Board of Education of the District of Columbia in 1972. Thus, IDEA was enacted for two reasons: First, to establish a consistent policy of what constitutes compliance with the equal protection clause so that there would be no need to continue pursuing separate court challenges around the country. Second, to help States meet their constitutional obligations. IDEA is landmark legislation that has literally changed the lives of millions of children with disabilities and their families. IDEA has been a very successful law that has made significant progress in addressing the problems that existed in 1975. Today, every State in the Nation has laws in effect assuring the provision of a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. Over 5,000,000 children with disabilities are now receiving special education and related services. The number of young adults enrolled in postsecondary education has tripled, and the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in their twenties is almost half that of their older counterparts. And, because of a promise made in 1986, all States now provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of hope. As one parent recently told me: Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is achieving academic success. He is also treated by his nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job and lead an independent life.'' IDEA helps preserve and strengthen the family unit. Because of IDEA, disabled children will grow up with their siblings and parents, and worship and play with neighbors and friends. IDEA teaches personal responsibility by tailoring education to meet each child's unique needs. IDEA empowers disabled children to grow up to lead productive lives in the mainstream of society. Because of IDEA, we hear less anger and frustration from parents than in the past. We now hear a greater sense of optimism, as I heard from a parent in Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter with autism. She said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live nearly independently as an adult, will work, and will be a very positive contributor to society. That is very much her dream, and it is my dream for her. IDEA has made this dream capable of becoming a reality.'' Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law across the country. But despite the tremendous progress that has been made since 1975, we know that our work is not over, and significant challenges still remain. The unfortunate truth is that, for far too many disabled children, the promise of IDEA is not yet a reality. For example, too many students with disabilities are still failing courses and dropping out of school. Almost twice as many disabled students drop out of school, as compared to nondisabled students. And when disabled students drop out, they are less likely to ever return to school and are more likely to be unemployed or have problems with the law. Enrollment of disabled students in postsecondary education is still too low. And too many of these students are leaving school ill-prepared for employment and independent living. Of further concern is the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special education classrooms with low expectation for these children. In addition, school officials and others complain that current law is unclear and focuses too much on paperwork and process rather than on improving results for children. And it is distressing to observe that the law is not being consistently implemented across the Nation, or even within individual States. Why is it that in one school district, the number of suspensions and drop outs is very high, whereas in a neighboring district within the same State, these problems do not exist? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated situation. In February, just after the working group began its effort to improve IDEA, I received a copy of a letter to David Hoppe from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund relating to implementation problems with IDEA in the city of Los Angeles. The letter states, ``We implore you to read the enclosed report prepared by well qualified, unbiased, independent consultants hired by the Los Angeles Unified School District in California and parents of children with disabilities in their efforts to resolve a lawsuit in Los Angeles for violations of IDEA.'' The letter adds: The findings of the consultants/experts are astounding. Twenty years after the passage of IDEA, the consultants were ``compelled to conclude that the District suffers from a pervasive, substantial, and systematic inability to deliver special education and related services in compliance with special education laws.''. . . The harm suffered by children with disabilities, their parents and their communities is incalculable, tragic and unacceptable. As a result of IDEA, most children are now in school. But it is clear that we must ensure that IDEA is fully and consistently implemented. And we need to place greater emphasis on improving educational results for these children. Careful strengthening and refocusing of the law is necessary in order to build upon 20 years of success while ensuring resolution of existing problems. In addressing these challenges, the bipartisan, bicameral working group established a set of principles to guide its efforts, including adopting the following three goals: The first goal was to review, strengthen, and improve IDEA to better educate children with disabilities and enable them to receive a quality education by: First, ensuring access to the general education curriculum and reforms; Second, strengthening the role of parents; Third, focusing on teaching and learning while reducing unnecessary paperwork requirements; Fourth, giving increased attention to racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity to prevent inappropriate identification and mislabeling; Fifth, ensuring that schools are safe and conducive to learning; Sixth, encouraging parents and educators to work out their differences by using nonadversarial means; and Seventh, assisting educational agencies in addressing the costs of improving special education and related services to children with disabilities. The second goal was to encourage exemplary practices that lead to improved teaching and learning experiences, and which in turn result in productive independent adult lives. The third goal was to assist States in the implementation of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and support the smooth and effective transition of these young children to preschool. The bill that we are considering today, S. 717--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997--has been developed with these three goals in mind. A basic framework used by the working group was developed by the Clinton administration during the 104th Congress. Without this framework provided by the administration, we would not have been able to achieve such a successful outcome. I was proud to have introduced, along with Senator Kennedy, the administration's proposed amendments to improve IDEA (S. 1075). In submitting the bill to Congress, Secretary Riley said: The IDEA has helped millions of disabled Americans to finish school, get a job, and make their civic contribution like other working americans. These amendments build on two decades of research and experience to meet the needs of the classrooms of today. They aim to ensure that students with disabilities are offered challenging materials in classrooms with well-prepared teachers. We want the focus of the IDEA today to be on better teaching and learning--and not on unnecessary paperwork. Much of the work of the administration in proposing improvements to IDEA has been because of the vision and leadership Judy Heumann, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Ms. Heumann testified at the January 29, 1997, hearing on IDEA conducted by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. In her testimony, she explained how important this legislation is to children with disabilities and their families: Through IDEA programs, millions of children with disabilities have received the education they need to become fully participating, fully contributing members of our society. The IDEA is not just a law on paper. To most families with disabled children, it is the bedrock foundation upon which the future of their children depend . . . Disabled students and their families do not want to be shut away from the rest of society or given a watered-down curriculum; they want an opportunity to study and to work so that they can contribute to society. The IDEA has changed the role of government from one of caretaker of dependent individuals to one that opens the door to education and empowers people with disabilities to fully participate in their community. This IDEA reauthorization bill that we are considering today has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Last Wednesday, May 7, 1997, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources unanimously approved the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 as an original bill. And the House Committee on Education and the Workforce voted out an identical bill. On the next day, S. 717 was formally introduced by Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin, along with Senators Lott, Kennedy, Coats, Dodd, Gregg, Mikulski, Frist, DeWine, Enzi, Hutchinson, Murray, Collins, Warner, McConnell and Reed. Mr. President, I am pleased to learn that this bill has the endorsement of 25 national disability groups. And the major organizations representing general education have also endorsed the bill. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these groups be printed in the Record. I am particularly pleased that I recently received a letter from Justin Dart, a friend and leader in the disability community, endorsing the bill: Colleagues, the agreement is the result of valiant efforts of disability advocates across the country. It maintains the fundamental right to a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. Without agreement, many of the fundamental protections for children and families afforded under the IDEA would have been dramatically weakened or even eliminated. Please join me in voicing your support for this legislation--and the principles of equality, inclusion, and education for all, on which we all agree. Let us unite, each of us communicating our common goal according to his or her own conscience. Together, we shall overcome. I am also pleased that the bill retains all of the basic rights and protections available under current law, while providing needed improvements. Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of children with disabilities, we have learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities. Consistent with the basic principles adopted by the working group in February, I would like to briefly describe some of the major changes to current law that are proposed in S. 717:

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to section 314 of S. 672, the supplemental appropriations bill. Section 314 was added to the bill in committee and would prohibit the Health Care Financing Administration from continuing with a Medicare competitive pricing demonstration project. I believe this provision does not belong on this emergency supplemental bill and if need be would more appropriately be addressed in the upcoming Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. In addition, I believe this provision would hurt our ability to reform Medicare and make certain that it gets the best deal possible for Medicare beneficiaries and other taxpayers. For many years, I have been working to identify and reform wasteful payment policies and practices in the administration of Medicare. The General Accounting Office estimates that up to 10 percent of Medicare funds are lost each year to waste, fraud and abuse. And my experience is that a large percentage of that is due to wasteful payment policies and practices. Clearly, the current Medicare payment scheme for managed care falls into this category and needs reform. Current policy grossly overpays in some areas and underpays in many rural areas. While there may be issues that need to be resolved with beneficiaries and providers in the area in which this managed care competitive pricing demonstration is to occur, that does not justify a complete cutoff of funds for the test. Officials at HCFA should promptly work with the community to address these issues. If there are legitimate issues that cannot be resolved over the next month or two, we could consider options for action on the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, we need to test ways in which we can achieve Medicare savings to ensure this critically important program's long-term solvency while preserving access and quality for beneficiaries. Enacting section 314 of this bill would be a setback to this important effort. Because of this I'm hopeful that this matter will be reconsidered and that any problems associated with this particular demonstration project can be promptly worked out administratively without the need for legislative action. I also want to express my concern with section 323 of the bill. This section is a legislative rider that is unrelated to the substance of S. 672. It repeals section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 which was intended to save taxpayers millions of dollars by giving State and local governments to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Federal Government. Implementation of this provision was delayed for 18 months last year to give time for the General Accounting Office to study the issue and report back recommendations to Congress. We should allow time to get the GAO's report and recommendations before taking action on this important issue. Amendment to Delay Implementation of the Welfare Law for Immigrants

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the National Guard has a history of superb performance in supporting the needs of law enforcement agencies and community antidrug coalitions. Every day the National Guard has nearly 4,000 soldiers and airmen on full-time counter drug duty. Three-hundred and seventy-three in support of the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA], 625 in support of U.S. Customs, and 3,000 more in support of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in every State in the Nation. Unfortunately, for the last 5 years, this successful program has been on a budget rollercoaster. For example, funding for the fiscal year 1998 National Guard Counterdrug State plans program will result in a 42-percent cut in the amount actually available to State plans from the fiscal year 1997 level. It is tough to maintain program consistency when the funding level fluctuates each year. Legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Ford, the co-chairman of the National Guard Caucus, will stabilize funding for the National Guard Counterdrug State plans program at no less than $200 million each fiscal year. Iowa law enforcement, as well as law enforcement across the United States, relies heavily on the help of the National Guard in their drug fighting efforts. The National Guard provides personnel and equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Guard men and women assist with analytical and technical support so that criminal investigators can be out on the street. The Iowa High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA] task force plans to utilize National Guard support as part of their efforts to fight methamphetamine trafficking in Iowa. Guard men and women also work in partnership with the Community Anti-drug Coalition of America and expect to reach 10 million young people in the country to help educate and motivate them to reject the use of illegal drugs. As we face unprecedented drug problems in Iowa and across the Nation, it is necessary to maintain consistent funding for the drug fighting efforts of the National Guard. Not only does the National Guard Counterdrug Program free up criminal investigators to fight crime on the streets, it provides an avenue for cooperation that makes enforcement more efficient as well. This program traditionally enjoys bipartisan support and affects law enforcement all across the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the National Guard has a history of superb performance in supporting the needs of law enforcement agencies and community antidrug coalitions. Every day the National Guard has nearly 4,000 soldiers and airmen on full-time counter drug duty. Three-hundred and seventy-three in support of the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA], 625 in support of U.S. Customs, and 3,000 more in support of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in every State in the Nation. Unfortunately, for the last 5 years, this successful program has been on a budget rollercoaster. For example, funding for the fiscal year 1998 National Guard Counterdrug State plans program will result in a 42-percent cut in the amount actually available to State plans from the fiscal year 1997 level. It is tough to maintain program consistency when the funding level fluctuates each year. Legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Ford, the co-chairman of the National Guard Caucus, will stabilize funding for the National Guard Counterdrug State plans program at no less than $200 million each fiscal year. Iowa law enforcement, as well as law enforcement across the United States, relies heavily on the help of the National Guard in their drug fighting efforts. The National Guard provides personnel and equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Guard men and women assist with analytical and technical support so that criminal investigators can be out on the street. The Iowa High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA] task force plans to utilize National Guard support as part of their efforts to fight methamphetamine trafficking in Iowa. Guard men and women also work in partnership with the Community Anti-drug Coalition of America and expect to reach 10 million young people in the country to help educate and motivate them to reject the use of illegal drugs. As we face unprecedented drug problems in Iowa and across the Nation, it is necessary to maintain consistent funding for the drug fighting efforts of the National Guard. Not only does the National Guard Counterdrug Program free up criminal investigators to fight crime on the streets, it provides an avenue for cooperation that makes enforcement more efficient as well. This program traditionally enjoys bipartisan support and affects law enforcement all across the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my good friend and colleague Senator Inouye in introducing legislation submitted by the Clinton administration to require the addition of a statue portraying FDR and his disability. This is an important measure that I hope will be quickly approved. I have always said that it took a disabled President to lead a disabled nation. President Clinton has taken the right step in improving the FDR Memorial by allowing Americans to view a more complete picture of one of our Nation's greatest Presidents. I look forward to the long-awaited dedication of the FDR Memorial this Friday. I have long thought this very important new memorial should include a statue depicting FDR in a wheelchair. Contrary to popular belief, President Roosevelt did at times purposely display his disability to inspire wounded veterans, persons with polio, and other groups of Americans. A statue portraying his disability will stand as a reminder to current and future generations of Americans that disability is a natural part of the human experience that in no way diminishes the ability of a person to fully participate in all aspects of American life. As the author of the Americans With Disabilities Act, I was proud to be joined by leaders of the disability community, former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford, a number of Roosevelt's descendants, and many other Americans in calling for a permanent depiction of FDR with his disability at the memorial. Our challenge now is to take the necessary steps to make this additional statue part of the FDR Memorial as soon as possible.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief comment about Alexis Herman. Recall that Ms. Herman was unanimously reported out of this committee. We should not be holding her hostage over an unrelated policy dispute--a disagreement with the President over project labor agreements. I hope that whatever one's views are on project labor agreements that her nomination can move forward. The Secretary of Labor serves as the spokesperson for working families in this country. We are considering several pieces of legislation that will affect working families and it is important that the Secretary of Labor be at the table as these changes in our work places are being considered. Ms. Herman must be allowed to assume her responsibilities as Secretary of Labor without further delay. I think it is unfortunate that our colleagues continue to deny the Senate even a vote on this important member of the President's Cabinet. Now, let us be clear on the proposed Executive order regarding project labor agreements [PLA's]. The Executive order only directs Federal agencies to consider using PLA's, it does not require them to do so. The Federal Government's interest in PLA's is to help ensure that public sector projects are completed efficiently, economically, and safely. PLA's set wages, working conditions, and dispute-resolution procedures for the duration of the project. This makes it easier for agencies to avoid cost-overruns and delays, while ensuring high quality work and safety at the worksite. They guarantee that the project will be completed on time, without strikes or lockouts. I find it incredible that the majority is so offended by this commonsense initiative. There is nothing new about project labor agreements--the Federal Government has used them on Federal projects since the 1930's. Examples include the Grand Coulee Dam, the Cape Canaveral Space Center, and the Nevada test site. Project labor agreements have been a very effective tool for Federal, State and local governments when faced with a major public works projects. PLA's have helped bring management and labor together to work out arrangements in terms of things like wages, benefits, and working conditions in return for a promise of no work stoppages or strikes. Contrary to what has been said about project labor agreements, non- union contractors and nonunion workers would not be prohibited from working on Federal projects--they simply would have to abide by the terms of the project labor agreement for that particular project. Republican Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and George Pataki of New York issued similar executive orders authorizing state agencies to use project labor agreements. Also, State and local governments regularly use PLA's. One notable example is the giant sewage treatment system now being built for metropolitan Boston as part of a court ordered clean up of Boston Harbor. Forty percent of the contractors on the Boston Harbor project are non-union. Furthermore, the projected cost of the project was $6.1 billion, the present estimate for completion is $3.4 billion. The Boston Harbor project is on schedule for completion by the year 2000 and safety, measured in lost time due to workplace injuries is below the industry average. During the 7 years of work on this project, there have been approximately 20 million hours worked without lost time due to strike or lock-out. This is quite a record of success. Lastly, contrary to the claim that President Clinton's proposed Executive order (EO) exceeds his constitutional authority, this action is legitimate and typical of actions taken by other Presidents with clear constitutional and statutory authority. For decades, presidents of both political parties have exercised their authority to issue executive orders to implement changes in Government contracting policies. Furthermore, when President Bush issued an Executive order in 1992 to prohibit Federal agencies and Federal contractors from entering into project labor agreements, there was no similar outcry. The Executive order on PLA's and the upcoming regulations on procurement reform are not a pay off to labor. They are sound policies that will make government operate more efficiently. The Federal Government should consider using project labor agreements when they increase efficiency, stability, and save taxpayer money.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without the use of abusive and exploitative child labor. Congressman George Miller is introducing companion legislation in the other body. This is the second time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. I'd like to ask my colleagues to take a moment to look around. Maybe it's the shirt you have on right now. Or the silk tie or blouse. Or the soccer ball you kick around with your kids in the backyard. Or the tennis shoes you wear on weekends. Chances are that you have purchased something--perhaps many things-- made with abusive and exploitative child labor. And chances are you were completely unaware that was the case. You will find a label that tells you what size it is, how to take care for it and what it costs. But it doesn't tell you about the person who made it. Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization [ILO] released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over 250 million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Now when I speak about child labor, I am not talking about 17-year- olds helping out on the family farm or running errands after school. I am speaking about children, often under 12 years old, who are forced to work long hours in hazardous and dangerous conditions, many as slaves, instead of going to school. On September 23, 1993, the Senate appropriately put itself on record as expressing its principled opposition to the abhorrent practice of exploiting children for commercial gain and asserting that it should be the policy of the United States to prohibit the importation of products made through the use of abusive and exploitative child labor by passing a sense of the Senate Resolution I introduced. In my view, this was the first step toward ending child labor. Mr. President, never has the issue of child labor in the garment industry been more prominent than today. Last year, talk show host Kathie Lee Gifford learned that some of the garments with her name on them were being produced by children. She did not bury her head in the sand. Instead, she reacted quickly and decisively to heighten awareness about the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor. Americans in Des Moines or Dallas or Detroit may say, ``What does this have to do with us?'' It is quite simple. By protecting the rights of workers everywhere, we will be protecting jobs and opportunities here at home. A U.S. worker cannot compete with a 12-year-old working 12 hours a day for 12 cents. Last year, the United States imported almost 50 percent of the wearing apparel sold in this country and the garment industry netted $34 billion. According to the Department of Commerce, last year, the United States imported 494.1 million pairs of athletic footwear and produced only 65.3 million here at home. That means that we imported enough shoes to encircle the earth five and a half times. As I have traveled around the country and spoken with people about the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor, I have found that consumers--ordinary Americans--want to get involved. They want information. They want to know if the products they are buying are made by children. According to a survey sponsored by Marymount University, more than three out of four Americans said they would avoid shopping at stores if they were aware that the goods sold there were made by exploitative and abusive child labor. They also said that they would be willing to pay an extra $1 on a $20 garment if it were guaranteed to be made under legitimate circumstances. I ask unanimous consent to enter this study into the Record. Mr. President, it is obvious that consumers don't want to reward companies with their hard-earned dollars by buying products made with abusive and exploitative child labor. This issue demands our attention. My legislation, the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act 1997, will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, a system of voluntary labeling holds the best promise of giving consumers the information they want--and giving the companies that manufacture these products the recognition they deserve. The crux of this legislation is to provide the framework for members of the wearing apparel and sporting goods industry, labor organizations, consumer advocacy and human rights groups along with the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury, and Labor to establish the labeling standard and develop a system to assure compliance that items were not made with abusive and exploitative child labor. Thus, ensuring consumers that the garment or pair of tennis shoes they purchase was made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, Congress can't do it alone through legislation. The Department of Labor can't do it alone through enforcement. It takes all of us from the private sector to labor and human rights groups to take responsibility, to come together to end abusive and exploitative child labor. And I am pleased to say there has recently been promising action to that end. Yesterday, an article in the New York Times appeared announcing a tentative agreement between human rights and labor leaders and some members of the apparel industry to adopt a code of conduct and a promise to form an association to provide consumers with information on the items they purchase. This is a praise worthy initiative and I am glad that my discussions with President Clinton on the issue of child labor have helped lead to this development. Now, we must take the logical next step to inform and assure consumers that the goods they purchase are not made with abusive and exploitative child labor. My bill has provisions for a labeling system that will inform consumers that the wearing apparel and sporting goods they purchase are not made by the sweat and toil of children, as well as enforcement provisions to assure consumers that the label has integrity. Until an effective and reliable labeling and monitoring system is in place, consumers can never truly be sure that the goods they purchase were not made by an exploited child. I look forward to continuing my work with my colleagues and the White House on strengthening this initiative to inform and empower consumers. That is what the American consumer demands and deserves. Mr. President, when the private sector decides to take speak up--it certainly can make a difference. Recently, in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association has agreed to work with the International Labor Organization to take children out of the garment factories and put them into school--where they belong. As of July 1996, more than 110 schools for former child workers have opened, serving nearly 2,000 children. So, if we can do it in Bangladesh, then we can do it elsewhere. Mr. President, let me be clear, companies can choose to use the label or not to. This bill is not about the big government telling the private sector what to do. This bill is centered around this fundamental principle: Let the Buyer Be Aware. This ``Truth in Labeling'' initiative is based on the principle that a fully informed American consumer will make the right, and moral, choice and vote against abusive and exploitative child labor with their pocketbook. We have seen such an approach work effectively with the Rugmark label for hand-knotted carpets from India. It is operating in some European countries. Consumers who want to buy child labor-free carpets can just look for the Rugmark label. I visited the Rugmark headquarters in New Delhi, India last week. Mr. President, this initiative is working. It has succeeded in taking children out of the factories and putting them into schools while providing consumers with the information they need. By the end of April, half a million carpets will have received the Rugmark label and been shipped to stores in Germany. Rugmark licenses already provide 30 percent of German carpet imports from India. And I am pleased to say that there are two wholesalers in New York that offer carpets with the Rugmark label. I am hopeful that by the end of the year there will be at least 20 importers in the United States. Mr. President, the progress that has been made on eradicating abusive and exploitative child labor is irreversible. Therefore we must continue to move forward. And I believe my bill allows us to do just that. It allows the consumer to know more about the products they buy and give companies that use the label the recognition they deserve. Our nation began this century by working to end abusive and exploitative child labor in America, let us close this century by ending child labor around the world. I urge my colleagues to support my bill. I hope that we will be able to vote on this piece of legislation in the near future so that we can give consumers the information they deserve to make informed decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on March 13, 1997, along with Senator Arlen Specter, I introduced bipartisan legislation, S. 441, the National Fund for Health Research Act. This important bill would provide additional resources for health research over and above those provided to the National Institutes of Health in the annual appropriations process. The fund will help eradicate some of the illnesses that now strike millions of Americans. At this time I would like to submit for the Record a letter from Christopher Reeve endorsing the National Fund for Health Research Act. Christopher Reeve has worked tirelessly since his accident to increase funding for medical research. We all owe Christopher Reeve a debt of gratitude for bringing health care concerns to the attention of all Americans. He and I both realize that the Fund for Health Research Act could hold the key to finding successful treatments for hundreds of diseases. In his letter, Christopher Reeve states that S. 441 will give our best researchers the funds they need to stay ahead of a developing crisis. I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment and urge the Senate to move quickly on this legislation. I now ask that the text of Christopher Reeve's letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Christopher Reeve, March 20, 1997. President Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Clinton. I was sorry to hear about your unfortunate accident but glad to know you will make a full recovery and that your activities won't be limited in the future. The sight of you in a wheelchair was very moving but also a helpful image for all Americans particularly the disabled. At the risk of becoming a pest, I'm taking this opportunity to ask your support for legislation introduced last week by Senators Specter and Harkin which would require insurance companies to donate 1 penny out of every dollar they receive in premiums to the NIH. It is estimated that this would provide an additional $6 billion dollars annually for research. I feel it is an excellent proposal because it does not raise taxes, the insurance companies can afford it and they ultimately receive the additional benefit of having to pay for fewer claims. And as I am sure you're aware, recent studies have shown the cost effectiveness of research, is of course a crucial factor in the balanced budget debate. As America ages, the attendant health problems will not go away unless we give our best researchers the funds they need to stay ahead of a developing crisis. Thank you again for all the helpful comments you have made so far about research since the convention last year. Now is the time for all of us to push into high gear. With best wishes for a speedy recovery. Sincerely, Christopher Reeve, (Signed by Michael Manganiello, Special Assistant to Christoper Reeve).

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to introduce the National Fund for Health Research Act. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Hatfield during the last Congress which gained broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Our proposal would establish a national fund for health research to provide additional resources for health research over and above those provided to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in the annual appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures, and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. To finance the fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury would then transfer the money to the national fund for health research. Each year under our proposal amounts within the national fund for health research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for that fiscal year. The set aside should generate sufficient funds to provide for a nearly 50-percent increase in funding for the NIH. In 1994, I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Health care reform has been taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's commitment to health research has not diminished. While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. If we can find the cure for a disease like Alzheimer's the savings would be enormous. Today, federally supported funding for research on Alzheimer's disease totals $300 million yet it is estimated that nearly $100 billion is expended annually on caring for people with Alzheimer's. Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving patients' quality of life. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research through the NIH is likely to continue to decline in real terms. The NIH is not able to fund even 25 percent of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is compared to rates of 30 percent or more just a decade ago. Science and cutting edge medical research is being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and countless other diseases. Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical research less and less attractive to young people. If the perception is that funding for research is impossible to obtain, young people that may have chosen medical research 10 years ago will choose other career paths. Mr. President, I am pleased that over 130 groups representing patients, hospitals, medical schools, researchers, and millions of Americans have already endorsed our proposal. Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise of cure or treatment for millions of Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to introduce the National Fund for Health Research Act. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Hatfield during the last Congress which gained broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Our proposal would establish a national fund for health research to provide additional resources for health research over and above those provided to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in the annual appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures, and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. To finance the fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury would then transfer the money to the national fund for health research. Each year under our proposal amounts within the national fund for health research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for that fiscal year. The set aside should generate sufficient funds to provide for a nearly 50-percent increase in funding for the NIH. In 1994, I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Health care reform has been taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's commitment to health research has not diminished. While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. If we can find the cure for a disease like Alzheimer's the savings would be enormous. Today, federally supported funding for research on Alzheimer's disease totals $300 million yet it is estimated that nearly $100 billion is expended annually on caring for people with Alzheimer's. Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving patients' quality of life. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research through the NIH is likely to continue to decline in real terms. The NIH is not able to fund even 25 percent of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is compared to rates of 30 percent or more just a decade ago. Science and cutting edge medical research is being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and countless other diseases. Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical research less and less attractive to young people. If the perception is that funding for research is impossible to obtain, young people that may have chosen medical research 10 years ago will choose other career paths. Mr. President, I am pleased that over 130 groups representing patients, hospitals, medical schools, researchers, and millions of Americans have already endorsed our proposal. Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise of cure or treatment for millions of Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997. The bill I'm introducing today prohibits the importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the fourth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization [ILO] released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over 200 million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high unemployment rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly 153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are in Africa and 7 percent, or 17.5 million, live in Latin America. Adult unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin America, for example, about 1 in every 10 children are workers. Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and health services. The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and sports equipment manufacturing. For instance, it is estimated that 65 percent of the wearing apparel that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore, increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan produce 95 percent of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses of child labor have been documented in these countries, including bonded and slave labor. Venezuela and Colombia exported $6,084,705 and $1,385,669 worth of mined products respectively to the United States in 1995. Both were documented by the Department of Labor as using child labor in mining. Mining hazards for children include exposure to harmful dusts, gases, and fumes that cause respiratory diseases that can develop into silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis, and emphysema after some years of exposure. Child miners also suffer from physical strain, fatigue, and musculoskeletal disorders, as well as serious injuries from falling objects. Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too early in life. For example, a large-scale ILO survey in the Philippines found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced serious injuries or illnesses. These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor contractors pay rural families in advance in order to take their children away to work in carpet weaving, glass manufacturing, or prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of its existence. Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at least five such international networks trafficking in children exist: from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and Southeast Asia to Northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export market in girls. In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the 50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and malnutrition. I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual slavery in the carpet factories of Northern India. Twelve-year-old Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the doors were always locked.'' Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams and childhood are being sold for a pittance to factory owners and in markets around the globe. It's about protecting children around the globe and their future. It's about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It's about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of factories and into schools. It's about raising the standard of living in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of the misery and suffering of those who make them. It's about assisting Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the same. Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations will forever be lost to the factory floor. Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997 is intended to strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their respective host countries that use child labor in the production of exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that products imported from identified industries are not made by child labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal penalties. This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are barred from entering the United States. Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill 4 years ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it. It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the solution by ending this abominable practice. Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children are not in primary school. In conclusion, Mr. President, my bill places no undue burden on U.S. importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would want their products and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not produced by child labor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today prohibits the importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the fourth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization [ILO] released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over 200 million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high unemployment rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly 153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are in Africa and 7 percent, or 17.5 million, live in Latin America. Adult unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin America, for example, about 1 in every 10 children are workers. Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and health services. The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and sports equipment manufacturing. For instance, it is estimated that 65 percent of the wearing apparel that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore, increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan produce 95 percent of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses of child labor have been documented in these countries, including bonded and slave labor. Venezuela and Colombia exported $6,084,705 and $1,385,669 worth of mined products respectively to the United States in 1995. Both were documented by the Department of Labor as using child labor in mining. Mining hazards for children include exposure to harmful dusts, gases, and fumes that cause respiratory diseases that can develop into silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis and emphysema after some years of exposure. Child miners also suffer from physical strain, fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders, as well as serious injuries from falling objects. Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too early in life. For example, a large scale ILO survey in the Philippines found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced serious injuries or illnesses. These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor contractors pay rural families in advance in order to take their children away to work in carpet weaving, glass manufacturing or prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in South Asia, South East Asia and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of its existence. Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at least five such international networks trafficking in children exist: from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and South East Asia to northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export market in girls. In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the 50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and malnutrition. I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual slavery in the carpet factories of northern India. Twelve-year-old Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the doors were always locked.'' Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams and childhood are being sold for a pittance--to factory owners and in markets around the globe. It is about protecting children around the globe and their future. It is about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It is about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of factories and into schools. It is about raising the standard of living in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of the misery and suffering of those who make them. It is about assisting Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the same. Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations will forever be lost to the factory floor. Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997 is intended to strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their respective host countries that use child labor in the production of exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that products imported from identified industries are not made by child labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal penalties. This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are barred from entering the United States. Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill 4 years ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it. It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the solution by ending this abominable practice. Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children are not in primary school. In conclusion, Mr. President, my bill places no undue burden on U.S. importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would want their products and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not produced by child labor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there's a story that's told about the film actor and comedian W.C. Fields. He was hardly religious, but on his deathbed a friend discovered him reading the Bible. So he asked Fields what we he was doing--and the actor responded with characteristic dry wit, ``I'm looking for loopholes.'' For too long, many multinational firms and foreign corporations operating in this country have done the same thing with the United States Tax Code. They have searched our tax laws for loopholes--and carved out special-interest breaks to avoid paying their fair share. And they've done it with great success. Today, for example, over seventy percent of foreign-based corporations in the United States pay no Federal income tax. Meanwhile working families who play by the rules struggle just to make ends meet. This is simply wrong and as a matter of basic fairness, it must end. So today, Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act of 1997 which will save taxpayers over $20 billion over the next 6 years. Companion legislation has been introduced in the other body by my friend and colleague Representative Lane Evans. Now is the time to act on this measure. In the coming days, we will take up a constitutional amendment to balance the Government's budget. I will vote for it. I believe we must get our financial house in order if we are to pass on to future generations a legacy of hope, and not a legacy of debt. But if we are going to balance our Government's budget--and keep it balanced in the years to come--every taxpayer will have to do their part. There's no doubt that working families and small businesses on Main Street already are contributing significantly. But foreign-based and multinational corporations simply have not paid their fair share. One of the central goals of Government policy--particularly tax policy--ought to be promoting investment in our people and in our businesses here at home. For too long, though, our tax policies have had it backwards--rewarding U.S. companies that move overseas and granting unfair tax giveaways to foreign subsidiaries in this country. American businesses shouldn't be forced to compete against foreign subsidiaries here that don't pay their fair share of taxes. And American workers shouldn't be left out in the cold because our tax laws encouraged companies to ship jobs away and ship products back. That is why I am introducing the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act. This legislation contains six main provisions. First, it ends the use of transfer pricing rules by multinational corporations to lower their U.S. tax liability. Multinational companies often sell a product to their subsidiaries at a discounted price-- effectively increasing a company's income while decreasing its U.S. tax liability. This bill would restrict a company's interagency pricing policies and, instead, tax the sale of products at their fair market value. Second, the bill disallows the practice of ``sourcing'' income from the sale of inventory property. In many cases, multinational corporations pass the title of sale to a foreign-owned subsidiary in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes even though the sale is completed in the United States. Third, it limits the excessive use of tax credits taken by multinational corporations on foreign oil and gas extraction income [FOGEI] and foreign oil related income [FORI]. U.S. tax credits should only be applied against foreign taxes, not the fees and royalties assessed by foreign nations. Fourth, it narrows section 911 of the tax code that exempts the first $70,000 of earned income from U.S. taxes for American citizens living and working abroad. However, this bill would allow those persons who work for non-profit organizations to still claim this exemption and would allow all U.S. citizens working abroad to deduct their children's education expenses up through high school. Fifth, it ends the tax-exempt status of foreign investors who buy private-issued debt by requiring these persons to pay a 30-percent withholding tax on the interest they earned on the bonds. Finally, this legislation would end the exemption of foreign individuals from capital gains taxes on the sale of stock in a U.S. corporation--unless they spend more than half the year in the United States. The revenue raised in this legislation from closing these loopholes will go solely to deficit reduction. As I said, in a time when we are trying to reach a balanced budget, everyone must pay their fair share. Mr. President, this is a common sense bill that will provide some fairness to working families and integrity to our Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense measure.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there's a story that's told about the film actor and comedian W.C. Fields. He was hardly religious, but on his deathbed a friend discovered him reading the Bible. So he asked Fields what we he was doing--and the actor responded with characteristic dry wit, ``I'm looking for loopholes.'' For too long, many multinational firms and foreign corporations operating in this country have done the same thing with the United States Tax Code. They have searched our tax laws for loopholes--and carved out special-interest breaks to avoid paying their fair share. And they've done it with great success. Today, for example, over seventy percent of foreign-based corporations in the United States pay no Federal income tax. Meanwhile working families who play by the rules struggle just to make ends meet. This is simply wrong and as a matter of basic fairness, it must end. So today, Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act of 1997 which will save taxpayers over $20 billion over the next 6 years. Companion legislation has been introduced in the other body by my friend and colleague Representative Lane Evans. Now is the time to act on this measure. In the coming days, we will take up a constitutional amendment to balance the Government's budget. I will vote for it. I believe we must get our financial house in order if we are to pass on to future generations a legacy of hope, and not a legacy of debt. But if we are going to balance our Government's budget--and keep it balanced in the years to come--every taxpayer will have to do their part. There's no doubt that working families and small businesses on Main Street already are contributing significantly. But foreign-based and multinational corporations simply have not paid their fair share. One of the central goals of Government policy--particularly tax policy--ought to be promoting investment in our people and in our businesses here at home. For too long, though, our tax policies have had it backwards--rewarding U.S. companies that move overseas and granting unfair tax giveaways to foreign subsidiaries in this country. American businesses shouldn't be forced to compete against foreign subsidiaries here that don't pay their fair share of taxes. And American workers shouldn't be left out in the cold because our tax laws encouraged companies to ship jobs away and ship products back. That is why I am introducing the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act. This legislation contains six main provisions. First, it ends the use of transfer pricing rules by multinational corporations to lower their U.S. tax liability. Multinational companies often sell a product to their subsidiaries at a discounted price-- effectively increasing a company's income while decreasing its U.S. tax liability. This bill would restrict a company's interagency pricing policies and, instead, tax the sale of products at their fair market value. Second, the bill disallows the practice of ``sourcing'' income from the sale of inventory property. In many cases, multinational corporations pass the title of sale to a foreign-owned subsidiary in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes even though the sale is completed in the United States. Third, it limits the excessive use of tax credits taken by multinational corporations on foreign oil and gas extraction income [FOGEI] and foreign oil related income [FORI]. U.S. tax credits should only be applied against foreign taxes, not the fees and royalties assessed by foreign nations. Fourth, it narrows section 911 of the tax code that exempts the first $70,000 of earned income from U.S. taxes for American citizens living and working abroad. However, this bill would allow those persons who work for non-profit organizations to still claim this exemption and would allow all U.S. citizens working abroad to deduct their children's education expenses up through high school. Fifth, it ends the tax-exempt status of foreign investors who buy private-issued debt by requiring these persons to pay a 30-percent withholding tax on the interest they earned on the bonds. Finally, this legislation would end the exemption of foreign individuals from capital gains taxes on the sale of stock in a U.S. corporation--unless they spend more than half the year in the United States. The revenue raised in this legislation from closing these loopholes will go solely to deficit reduction. As I said, in a time when we are trying to reach a balanced budget, everyone must pay their fair share. Mr. President, this is a common sense bill that will provide some fairness to working families and integrity to our Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense measure.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it was with great sadness that my wife and I learned this morning of the death of a dear friend of over two and one-half decades, Pamela Harriman, our country's Ambassador to France. As I said, for the better part of about 25 years, Pamela and Averell, first of all, were friends and two people who encouraged me early on in my political life when I first ran for office. Later, after her husband Averell passed away, Pamela continued to extend that hand of friendship to me, my wife, and our family. I remember when I first came to Washington as a freshman Congressman in 1975, I was amazed at how Pamela Harriman and Averell at that time opened up their home to younger Members. I know a lot has been made about how the movers and shakers of the world were always at Pamela Harriman's house. But it was not just them; she always made sure her home and house was open to the new people who came to Washington. She was constantly promoting and encouraging young people, young Members of Congress, new people who were here, to showcase their ideas, to encourage them, to push harder and to climb up the ladder. So I remember her very fondly for the encouragement and support that she gave this Senator in my early years of seeking public office. During the last decade, the 1980's, Pamela Harriman was always there in our party, the Democratic Party, trying to rebuild and to encourage people to seek public office. As I said, she was always encouraging the formulation of new ideas and approaches. I think our party owes her a great debt for all that she did to encourage these younger people and to keep us pulled together during the decade of the 1980's. During the Presidential election of 1992, she was very active in helping then Governor Clinton gain the White House. For the last 3\1/2\ years, Pamela Harriman served this country honorably and well and I think with great distinction as our Ambassador to France. As I have had occasion to travel overseas, I have heard, on many occasions, from individuals in different parts of Europe about what a great representative of America Pamela Harriman was. She was indeed that. Pamela Harriman was always proud of her British ancestry and heritage. She was even more proud of the fact that she was an American. She was always undeniably gracious to all who came within her reach. She was always open to new ideas, as I said, of the younger people coming into Government and politics. She always found time to give encouragement, help, and support. So it is a sad day for our country, for all of her friends, and for all of those of us in the Democratic Party who looked to her for help and support for so many years. Ruth, my wife, and I extend our deepest sympathies to the Harriman family. I just want to say that Pamela Harriman indeed left a very indelible mark, not only in the city of Washington, not only on the Democratic Party, but indeed on the United States of America. She will be greatly missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 am pleased to join Chairman Lugar and Senator Leahy in introducing legislation to amend the Commodity Exchange Act. This bill updates and streamlines U.S. futures trading law, and provides needed clarification to several critical issues facing today's vast derivative markets. After reviewing the committee testimony taken last year, and meeting informally with industry, regulators, and academics, Chairman Lugar, Senator Leahy, and I are convinced that these changes are appropriate and necessary if the United States is to maintain its dynamic, world- class futures trading industry. There is a strong public interest in maintaining a competitive and sound futures market in the United States. These markets are critical because they allow farmers, ranchers, and other businesses to manage risk and maximize their investment opportunities. At the same time, the committee has an obligation to protect the public trust through effective enforcement and regulatory measures that prevent and punish fraud and other abuses that may, and have, occurred in the international financial markets--including the futures market. This bill is a bipartisan effort to find the balance between the need for prudent regulation with industry's need for changes so that the U.S. futures market continues to be the driving force in today's competitive global financial markets. Introduction of this legislation is timely. President Clinton's 1998 budget, due for release later this week, challenges Federal agencies to do more with less. It will ask Federal agencies to improve programs and services and streamline procedures. This legislation provides legislative backing to accomplish this crucial goal. The bill proposes specific changes that will further assist the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the primary regulator of the futures industry, to continue its on-going effort to focus scarce resources where they are most effective--in enforcement-- preventing consumer fraud and manipulation of market prices. The legislation allows industry to focus on product innovation and marketing so that the end users--farmers, ranchers, and other businesses--have available to them, free of fraud and at a competitive price, the most state-of-the-art financial products. The bill also provides the CFTC with additional authority to require U.S. delivery points for overseas futures markets to provide information similar to that currently demanded of American market participants. This provision may help prevent a repeat of last summer's 1996 London/Tokyo copper market crisis where billions of dollars were lost due, in part, to lack of sufficient information and Government oversight by the CFTC's foreign counterparts. I am pleased that this legislation addresses the uncertainty that currently exists in the so-called ``Treasury amendment'', a 1974 provision of the Commodity Exchange Act that excludes certain financial products from its regulatory coverage. This provision has long been controversial and our proposal suggests one solution. It is unfortunate that the Treasury Department and the CFTC were unable to negotiate a resolution of this issue in time for this bill's reintroduction. But I remain open to alternative proposals, and look forward to hearing the views of all interested regulators, industry participants, and users of these products at next week's hearings. Two other important aspects of this legislation are a provision that provides greater legal certainty for the over-the-counter financial tools such as swaps and hybrids, and a provision that codifies a 1992 provision to allow on-exchange products to be traded solely among professional investors. Both of these provisions are important to the ability of private enterprises to manage business risk. I am very pleased to join my colleagues in offering this bill. Chairman Lugar, Senator Leahy, and I have worked together on futures issues for many years. We did the same on this bill--working to ensure that these markets remain competitive while maintaining effective provisions on customer protection and market integrity. Introducing this bill early in the 105th Congress offers ample time to continue last year's public discussion and debate over what changes are appropriate and necessary to maintaining a viable U.S. futures market. It is my experience that such a dialogue helps develop solid bipartisan legislation. As with most issues, there are many interests that must be balanced, and this bill strives to find that balance. I am certainly open to further input as we hold hearings next week. I look forward to continuing the process.