Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Was that 30,000 that use this?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President. Mr. President, I was listening to the statements by my friend from Missouri, with whom I serve on the committee of jurisdiction dealing with this so-called TEAM Act, and I will use that phrase, ``so-called TEAM Act.'' Listening to my friend from Missouri and looking at the title of this bill, the TEAM Act, which stands for, if I am not mistaken, ``teamwork for employees and management,'' I cannot help but be reminded of that wonderful phrase from ``Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass,'' where Humpty-Dumpty is talking to Alice. Let me paraphrase: ``When I use a word it means just what I mean it to mean.'' And Alice says, ``Well that's not fair. It doesn't work that way.'' And Humpty-Dumpty says: ``The real question is, who's going to be the boss?'' That is really what this is all about. Who is going to be the boss? Are we, in fact, going to have a structure that allows for real cooperation? I will say to my friend from Missouri that real cooperation, productive cooperation, can only occur when the parties who are seeking to cooperate do so on a level playing field. To have one side or the other impose a structure, to impose rules, to impose what the framework is is not going to lead to productive cooperation. What my friend from Missouri is advocating would be like--and under the TEAM Act, I do not say my friend from Missouri--but under the TEAM Act, so-called TEAM Act, it would be like if Senator Dole were to pick the representatives of the Democratic Party to represent the Democratic Party on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN. I will in just a second. I just want to finish my thought on that. So, again, we would not want that to happen. Maybe Senator Dole would like that to happen now that he is majority leader, or perhaps if the tables were turned and the Democrats were in charge, maybe the Democratic leader would like to pick who represents the Republicans. I think the Senator sees what I am getting at. But it can only be done if you have that level playing field. I think we have that level field. There is nothing in section 8(a)(2) now that prohibits management and labor from getting together to discuss these items and to have working relationships. I see them all the time. It just comes about when management says, ``We want to cooperate and here's the terms of our cooperation. As long as you agree, we can cooperate.'' That is what we are trying to avoid. That is really what this so- called TEAM Act does. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I will say to my friend from Missouri, I can give examples in my own State and around the Nation of businesses, companies, where the owners and the managers deal forthrightly and with every sense of equality with the workers. Some of those plants are not organized, they are not organized labor. So they say, ``We don't need organized labor. Look, we get along fine, the workers like it, we have great benefits, we have a good system set up for any kind of dispute resolutions.'' That is true. There are a lot of those around. But the fact is there are a lot more that maybe are not, and that is why we have labor law, that is why we have the National Labor Relations Act. That is why we have section 8(a)(2), to provide a framework whereby workers can select their own representatives and where they are on an equal footing with management. I suppose the Senator disagrees with my philosophy on this. My philosophy is that capital and labor ought to be represented equally. I do not think capital ought to be above labor, nor do I think labor ought to be above capital, but I think the two ought to work together. I believe it is not in the best interest of our capitalistic system to place capital above labor, because that will destroy our productivity and destroy our labor force in this country. I also think the opposite is not good either, trying to elevate labor over capital. So we have to try to keep a balance. That is what the National Labor Relations Act is about; that is what section 8(a)(2) is about. I am sure the Senator can find examples of businesses where they treat the workers fine; gosh, why do you need a labor union for all this? Yes, I can show you examples of that in my own State, too. The Senator talks about the EFCO case in Monett, MO, but there is another side to that story. I listened to the Senator from Missouri talking about this example of a circuit breaker switch or tornado warning. I believe the Senator is a good lawyer, and it is like if you only read the prosecution side of a case, you say the person is guilty. If that is all you read is the prosecution side, you say the person is guilty. If you read the defense side, you say, ``Hey, that person's innocent.'' To find out the truth of the facts, you have to read both sides. I do not know what the whole story is about the circuit breaker or the tornado warnings. I do not know all the facts. But I would like to know the whole story. It is like EFCO. There is another side to that story. In fact, I will start to go through some of that now. But the fact is, that EFCO really started reacting only when the employees started to organize. There was the threat of that. The Senator says, hundreds of employees came to him and said, ``We like this, and we want to continue it.'' Yes, I can understand that, if they are afraid of losing their jobs because they did not have that kind of bargaining unit, but I thought I might just go through the sequence of events that led up to the administrative law judge's ruling on the EFCO. I think that my friend from Missouri and others have mischaracterized this case and what the decision represents. My friend from Missouri and others use the EFCO decision as really an example of why we need this bill. Quite frankly, I think it is an example of why we really do not need this bill. Let me go through some of the factors here. If the Senator from Missouri wants to try to correct me on this, he should feel free to do so. I am trying to get to the bottom of this and the facts. In April 1992--first of all, the administrative law judge's decision in EFCO ruled that four inplant committees were unlawfully dominated and assisted by EFCO, by the management. None of those committees demonstrated ``shared management decisionmaking or co-determination of cooperation by the work force,'' but they all resembled classic forms of management-directed sham bargaining vehicles, or ``employer representation plans, that were deliberately outlawed by the Wagner Act of section 8(a)(2).'' So what happened in this case? In April 1992, EFCO's president suddenly directed its plant facilitator to revive a defunct safety committee. The plant facilitator announced the formation of the committee on April 21, 1992, defining its role as setting and enforcing safety policies. He, the plant facilitator, selected the members of the committee from volunteers, and they shared the first meeting on June 4, 1992. He was succeeded as the director of the committee by EFCO's safety director, who continued to set the agendas for the meetings. The committee never had or exercised any authority to enforce or discipline violations of safety policies--never. In September 1992, EFCO's president announced the employee benefit committee to the employees on September 8, 1992, defining its function as soliciting ideas regarding employee benefits from the employees and making recommendations to the management committee, which was EFCO's core management group--and in which, I might add, no rank-and-file employees participated. This was all management directed. EFCO's chief financial officer selected the 10 committee members again from volunteers, but those volunteers previously screened by the human resources manager, again, were part of management. Among the appointees was a supervisor and the president's confidential secretary. Imagine that. They were part of the team they selected to represent the employees. At the initial meeting on October 1, 1992, EFCO's president designated the first issues to be considered and directed that other issues be solicited from the employees. The human resources manager, the CFO, and, later, the comptroller attended the committee meetings. The committee's chairman met with the management committee to discuss and clarify the committee's recommendations. The management committee determined whether or not to adopt the committee's recommendations. Let me repeat that. The management's committee determined whether or not to adopt the committee's recommendation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, much of the debate on this floor is focused on how to strengthen our immigration laws. But whatever we pass will not mean much if we do not make sure that our States have the tools and support they need to enforce those laws in the first place. My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Byrd and Senator Daschle that would require the Attorney General to provide at least 10 full-time active duty agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in each State. These can be either new agents or existing agents shifted from other States. In America today, immigration is not simply a California issue or a New York issue or a Texas or Florida issue. I can tell you that it is a real issue--and a real challenge--in my own State. But today there are three States--including Iowa--that have no permanent INS presence to combat illegal immigration or to assist legal immigrants. In fact, in Iowa every other Federal law enforcement agency is represented except the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This is a commonsense amendment. Ten agents is a modest level compared to agents in other States. According to INS current staffing levels, Missouri has 92 agents, Minnesota has 281 agents and the State of Washington has 440. And Iowa, West Virginia, and South Dakota have zero. This just does not make any sense. Clearly every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic needs. My amendment would ensure that need is met. It would affect 10 States and only require 61 agents which is less than 0.3 percent of the current 19,780 INS agents nationwide. Let me speak briefly about the situation in my own State. Currently, Iowa shares an INS office located in Omaha, NE. In its February report, the Omaha INS office reported that they apprehend a total of 704 illegal aliens last year for the two State area. This number is up by 52 percent from 1994. The irony here is that in 1995, the INS office in Omaha was operating at a 33 percent reduction in manpower from 1994 staff levels. Yet the number of illegal aliens apprehended increased by 52 percent that year. This same report states that there are about 550 criminal aliens being detained or serving sentences in Iowa and Nebraska city-county jails. Many of these aliens were arrested for controlled substance violations and drug trafficking crimes. A little law enforcement relief is on its way to Iowa. The Justice Department announced that it will establish an INS office in Cedar Rapids with four law enforcement agents. That is a good step. And it is four more agents then we had before. But we need additional INS enforcement to assist Iowa's law enforcement in the central and western parts of our State. In fact, the Omaha district office assesed in their initial report to the Justice Department that at least 8 INS enforcement agents are needed simply to handle the issue of illegal immigration in Iowa. Mr. President, in the immigration reform legislation before the Senate this week, the Attorney General will be mandated to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,000 every year for the next 4 years. Yet for Iowa, the Justice Department can only spare 4 law enforcement agents and no agents to perform examinations or inspections functions. By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice Department will save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only travel time but also jail time per alien, since a permanent INS presence would substantially speedup deportation proceedings. There is also a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to speed up document processing. The Omaha INS office reported that based on its first quarter totals for this year the examinations process for legal immigrants applying for citizenship or adjusting their status went up 45 percent from last year. Even though, once again, the manpower for the Omaha INS office is down by one-third. I have recommended that permanent INS office in Des Moines be located in free office space that would be provided by the Des Moines International Airport. Placing the office in the Des Moines International Airport would benefit Iowa in three ways. First, it would cut costs and save taxpayers money. Second, it would generate economic benefits for Iowa because the airport could then process international arrivals and advance Iowa's goal of becoming increasingly more competitive in the global market. Third, the office would be able to process legal immigrants living in Iowa. I urge my collegues to join in support of my amendment. It is common sense, it is modest, and it sends a clear message to our States that we are committee to enforcing our immigration laws and giving them the tools they need to do it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, in a colloquy. As you know, the Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a plan to improve the health of this country's citizens by the year 2000. Included in that plan, commonly referred to as the healthy people 2000 report, was a goal to reduce the average age at which children with significant hearing impairment are identified to no more than 12 months. In March 1993, NIH convened a consensus panel on early identification of hearing impairments in infants and young children. That panel recommended that all children be screened for hearing impairment before they discharged from the birthing hospital. Unfortunately, at that time, few hospitals or audiologists and experience with the newborn hearing screening techniques which were recommended. Therefore, in October 1993, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau funded a consortium of sites who were experienced with NIH-recommended technique to encourage and assist with the implementation of the NIH recommendation. That consortium, with a relatively small amount of Federal money, has been extremely successful in assisting with the implementation of newborn hearing screening programs. Through their efforts, there are now over 70 hospitals in 14 different States doing universal newborn hearing screening following the NIH-recommended protocol.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our attention. I concur with his recommendation and underscore the value of such a facility. This project should certainly be considered for empowerment zone funding.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, much of the debate on this floor is focused on how to strengthen our immigration laws. But whatever we pass will not mean much if we do not make sure that our States have the tools and support they need to enforce those laws in the first place. That is why I rise today to offer this bill that would require the Attorney General to provide at least 10 full-time active duty agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in each State. These can be either new agents or existing agents shifted from other States. In America today, immigration is not simply a California issue or a New York issue or a Texas or Florida issue. I can tell you that it is a real issue--and a real challenge--in my own State. But today there are three States--including Iowa--that have no permanent INS presence to combat illegal immigration or to assist legal immigrants. In fact, in Iowa every other Federal law enforcement agency is represented except the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This is a commonsense amendment. Ten agents is a modest level compared to agents in other States. According to INS current staffing levels, Missouri has 92 agents, Minnesota has 281 agents, and the State of Washingon has 440. And Iowa, West Virginia, and South Dakota have zero. This just does not make any sense. Clearly every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic needs. My bill would ensure that need is met. It would affect 10 States and only require 61 agents which is less than 0.3 percent of the current 19,780 INS agents nationwide. Let me speak briefly about the situation in my own State. Currently, Iowa shares an INS office located in Omaha, NE. In its February report, the Omaha INS office reported that they apprehended a total of 704 illegal aliens last year for the two-State area. This number is up by 52 percent from 1994. The irony here is that in 1995, the INS office in Omaha was operating at a 33-percent reduction in manpower from 1994 staff levels. Yet the number of illegal aliens apprehended increased by 52 percent that year. This same report states that there are about 550 criminal aliens being detained or serving sentences in Iowa and Nebraska city/county jails. Many of these aliens were arrested for controlled substance violations and drug trafficking crimes. A little law enforcement relief is on its way to Iowa. The Justice Department announced that it will establish an INS office in Cedar Rapids with four law enforcement agents. That is a good step. And it is four more agents then we had before. But we need additional INS enforcement to assist Iowa's law enforcement in the central and western parts our State. In fact, the Omaha district office assessed in their initial report to the Justice Department that at least eight INS enforcement agents are needed simply to handle the issue of illegal immigration in Iowa. Mr. President, in the immigration reform legislation before the Senate this week, the Attorney General will be mandated to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,000 every year for the next 4 years. Yet for Iowa, the Justice Department can only spare four law enforcement agents and no agents to perform examinations or inspections functions. By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice Department will save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only travel time but also jail time per alien, since a permanent INS presence would substantially speed up deportation proceedings. There is also a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to speed up document processing. The Omaha INS office reported that based on its first quarter totals for this year the examinations process for legal immigrants applying for citizenship or adjusting their status went up 45 percent from last year. Even though, once again, the manpower for the Omaha INS office is down by one-third. I have recommended that a permanent INS office in Des Moines be located in free office space that would be provided by the Des Moines International Airport. Placing the office in the Des Moines International Airport would benefit Iowa in three ways. First, it would cut costs and save taxpayers money. Second, it would generate economic benefits for Iowa because the airport could then process international arrivals and advance Iowa's goal of becoming increasingly more competitive in the global market. Third, the office would be able to process legal immigrants living in Iowa. I urge my colleagues to join in support of my bill. It is common sense, it is modest, and it sends a clear message to our States that we are committed to enforcing our immigration laws and giving them the tools they need to do it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Conrad for introducing this legislation to correct a provision in the newly passed farm bill that threatens to leave thousands of farm families in the lurch as they attempt to get a crop in the ground this spring. This feature of the new farm bill hits especially hard farmers, such as those in parts of Iowa, who are trying to recover from the hardships caused by disaster situations beyond their control. It is my understanding that some 30 to 40 percent of the approximately 8,000 USDA borrowers in Iowa are likely to be adversely affected by this provision. The provision involved here prohibits USDA from making any type of operating, farm ownership, or emergency loan to a person who has at any time received any debt forgiveness from USDA on such a loan in the past. This provision was by clear terms made effective immediately upon enactment of the new farm bill, which was signed into law on April 4 of this year. As a consequence, many farmers who were in the process of having loans approved are cut off at the very last moment from credit that they were fully justified in counting on for planting this year's crop. Farm families have enough to worry about during planting season without having Congress create a whole new set of unanticipated problems and worries for them. The consequence of this provision of the farm bill is that no matter how small the amount forgiven, no matter whether the forgiveness was due to reasons entirely beyond the control of the borrower, no new credit may be provided even if the farmer is now a sound credit risk-- except for limited circumstances in the case of annual operating loans for borrowers whose debt was restructured under section 353. For example, even if a portion of interest, but no principal, was forgiven on a loan during the farm crisis a decade or more ago, for reasons beyond the control of the borrower, this provision says no more loans. There may be reasonable arguments over the fairness of that policy, but clearly the harshest aspect of the new farm bill's loan ineligibility provision is that it kicked into effect on the date the bill became law, with little or no warning to farmers whose loans were in the process of being approved. The farm bill was long overdue by the time it passed Congress, and the problems caused by the lateness of the bill were compounded by the specific preclusion of any grace period for the new prohibition against loans to borrowers receiving past loan forgiveness. Farmers were left with virtually nowhere to turn because it was too late in the season to have a realistic chance to arrange other financing. There has been some discussion whether USDA has misinterpreted the language of the bill or the legislative intent as to the effect of the new ineligibility provision, but the language of the bill is quite clear. Moreover, the matter of a reasonable grace period was specifically discussed during conference, but was rejected by the majority conferees. I believe USDA should be careful in lending money, but the new farm bill is too extreme and too harsh. This bill is a limited remedy for the harshness of the new ineligibility provision in the farm bill and the serious hardship it is causing. I am hopeful that legislation can be passed yet this week to address this very unfair situation created by the new farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the chief magnet drawing illegal immigrants into the United States and enabling them to stay--is jobs. Border control is an effective strategy against illegal immigration but the lure of jobs will continue to attract illegal workers. We must reduce the job magnet that draws illegal immigrants to this country and deprives American workers of their livelihood. For years, illegal aliens entering the United States have found employers ready and willing to hire them, often for wages which were substandard and under conditions which ranged from improper to illegal and inhumane. We passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which made it illegal to hire undocumented workers. We have recently beefed up enforcement of this legislation but must continue to do more. Today I am introducing legislation to keep Federal contracts from going to businesses who knowingly hire illegal workers. My legislation makes permanent, President Clinton's February 13 Executive order. Employers who knowingly hire illegal workers should not benefit from Government business and tax dollars. Consider the following two incidents which occurred at work sites in Maryland in March of this year. On March 21, INS agents arrested four illegal immigrants working on Fort Meade Army base. They were building Government town homes under a $24 million Federal contract. A week later, INS agents arrested 12 illegal immigrants removing asbestos from the Fallon Federal Building in downtown Baltimore. Benedict Ferro, INS Director for the Maryland district, noted, ``* * * there is a willingness by employers to hire them. Without that willingness, we wouldn't have this problem. It hurts, these are not jobs that permanent residents of the United States wouldn't want. These are jobs that could be filled by the unemployed in Maryland.'' These are examples of the employers we need to focus our efforts on. Most employers want to comply with the law but for the few that spoil it for everyone, we have to have a tough strategy. Any effort to stem the flow of illegal immigration into our country cannot succeed if the lure of U.S. jobs remains. American jobs belong to lawful workers. A strong worksite enforcement policy discourages illegal workers from crossing the border into the United States in addition to supporting American jobs for citizens and other legal workers. Curbing illegal immigration by enforcing worker protection laws has a direct, if too seldom noted, policy connection. Illegal immigrants are frequently subjected to subminimum wages, dangerous workplaces, long hours, and other poor working conditions because they are desperate for work and in a weak position to insist on their rights. Knowingly hiring illegal immigrants both reveals, and rewards, an employer's willingness to break the law, and undermine wages and working conditions for legal workers. My legislation would ensure that the Federal Government does not reward such conduct with U.S. tax dollars. Labor law enforcement not only helps ensure fairness and minimally acceptable employment standards in the workplace, but also helps to foster a level competitive playing field for employers. Businesses who knowingly hire illegal workers at substandard wages and working conditions have an advantage over employers who do not exploit their workers. INS agents note that companies are willing to hire illegal workers to slash costs and increase profits. This is blatantly against the law and not only unfair to American workers who need the jobs but to other employers who abide by the law and do not boost profits by exploiting their labor. At the same time, by introducing this legislation, I want to make clear that employment discrimination will not be tolerated. Existing Federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of national origin or race. Enforcement of this legislation will not undermine antidiscrimination protection for legal workers. From its beginning, our Nation has been a land of immigrants--people from the world over seeking refuge, opportunity, and a better life for themselves and their families. Like my mother, who came to Iowa from Slovenia. America is the land of opportunity, but America is also a land of responsibility. I remain adamantly opposed to discrimination at the workplace but feel that we must do more to crack down on illegal immigration and those who violate our laws at the expense of American workers.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, much of the debate on this floor is focused on how to strengthen our immigration laws. But whatever we pass will not mean much if we do not make sure that our States have the tools and support they need to enforce those laws in the first place. That is why I rise today to offer this bill that would require the Attorney General to provide at least 10 full-time active duty agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in each State. These can be either new agents or existing agents shifted from other States. In America today, immigration is not simply a California issue or a New York issue or a Texas or Florida issue. I can tell you that it is a real issue--and a real challenge--in my own State. But today there are three States--including Iowa--that have no permanent INS presence to combat illegal immigration or to assist legal immigrants. In fact, in Iowa every other Federal law enforcement agency is represented except the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This is a commonsense amendment. Ten agents is a modest level compared to agents in other States. According to INS current staffing levels, Missouri has 92 agents, Minnesota has 281 agents, and the State of Washingon has 440. And Iowa, West Virginia, and South Dakota have zero. This just does not make any sense. Clearly every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic needs. My bill would ensure that need is met. It would affect 10 States and only require 61 agents which is less than 0.3 percent of the current 19,780 INS agents nationwide. Let me speak briefly about the situation in my own State. Currently, Iowa shares an INS office located in Omaha, NE. In its February report, the Omaha INS office reported that they apprehended a total of 704 illegal aliens last year for the two-State area. This number is up by 52 percent from 1994. The irony here is that in 1995, the INS office in Omaha was operating at a 33-percent reduction in manpower from 1994 staff levels. Yet the number of illegal aliens apprehended increased by 52 percent that year. This same report states that there are about 550 criminal aliens being detained or serving sentences in Iowa and Nebraska city/county jails. Many of these aliens were arrested for controlled substance violations and drug trafficking crimes. A little law enforcement relief is on its way to Iowa. The Justice Department announced that it will establish an INS office in Cedar Rapids with four law enforcement agents. That is a good step. And it is four more agents then we had before. But we need additional INS enforcement to assist Iowa's law enforcement in the central and western parts our State. In fact, the Omaha district office assessed in their initial report to the Justice Department that at least eight INS enforcement agents are needed simply to handle the issue of illegal immigration in Iowa. Mr. President, in the immigration reform legislation before the Senate this week, the Attorney General will be mandated to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,000 every year for the next 4 years. Yet for Iowa, the Justice Department can only spare four law enforcement agents and no agents to perform examinations or inspections functions. By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice Department will save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only travel time but also jail time per alien, since a permanent INS presence would substantially speed up deportation proceedings. There is also a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to speed up document processing. The Omaha INS office reported that based on its first quarter totals for this year the examinations process for legal immigrants applying for citizenship or adjusting their status went up 45 percent from last year. Even though, once again, the manpower for the Omaha INS office is down by one-third. I have recommended that a permanent INS office in Des Moines be located in free office space that would be provided by the Des Moines International Airport. Placing the office in the Des Moines International Airport would benefit Iowa in three ways. First, it would cut costs and save taxpayers money. Second, it would generate economic benefits for Iowa because the airport could then process international arrivals and advance Iowa's goal of becoming increasingly more competitive in the global market. Third, the office would be able to process legal immigrants living in Iowa. I urge my colleagues to join in support of my bill. It is common sense, it is modest, and it sends a clear message to our States that we are committed to enforcing our immigration laws and giving them the tools they need to do it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Conrad for introducing this legislation to correct a provision in the newly passed farm bill that threatens to leave thousands of farm families in the lurch as they attempt to get a crop in the ground this spring. This feature of the new farm bill hits especially hard farmers, such as those in parts of Iowa, who are trying to recover from the hardships caused by disaster situations beyond their control. It is my understanding that some 30 to 40 percent of the approximately 8,000 USDA borrowers in Iowa are likely to be adversely affected by this provision. The provision involved here prohibits USDA from making any type of operating, farm ownership, or emergency loan to a person who has at any time received any debt forgiveness from USDA on such a loan in the past. This provision was by clear terms made effective immediately upon enactment of the new farm bill, which was signed into law on April 4 of this year. As a consequence, many farmers who were in the process of having loans approved are cut off at the very last moment from credit that they were fully justified in counting on for planting this year's crop. Farm families have enough to worry about during planting season without having Congress create a whole new set of unanticipated problems and worries for them. The consequence of this provision of the farm bill is that no matter how small the amount forgiven, no matter whether the forgiveness was due to reasons entirely beyond the control of the borrower, no new credit may be provided even if the farmer is now a sound credit risk-- except for limited circumstances in the case of annual operating loans for borrowers whose debt was restructured under section 353. For example, even if a portion of interest, but no principal, was forgiven on a loan during the farm crisis a decade or more ago, for reasons beyond the control of the borrower, this provision says no more loans. There may be reasonable arguments over the fairness of that policy, but clearly the harshest aspect of the new farm bill's loan ineligibility provision is that it kicked into effect on the date the bill became law, with little or no warning to farmers whose loans were in the process of being approved. The farm bill was long overdue by the time it passed Congress, and the problems caused by the lateness of the bill were compounded by the specific preclusion of any grace period for the new prohibition against loans to borrowers receiving past loan forgiveness. Farmers were left with virtually nowhere to turn because it was too late in the season to have a realistic chance to arrange other financing. There has been some discussion whether USDA has misinterpreted the language of the bill or the legislative intent as to the effect of the new ineligibility provision, but the language of the bill is quite clear. Moreover, the matter of a reasonable grace period was specifically discussed during conference, but was rejected by the majority conferees. I believe USDA should be careful in lending money, but the new farm bill is too extreme and too harsh. This bill is a limited remedy for the harshness of the new ineligibility provision in the farm bill and the serious hardship it is causing. I am hopeful that legislation can be passed yet this week to address this very unfair situation created by the new farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the chief magnet drawing illegal immigrants into the United States and enabling them to stay--is jobs. Border control is an effective strategy against illegal immigration but the lure of jobs will continue to attract illegal workers. We must reduce the job magnet that draws illegal immigrants to this country and deprives American workers of their livelihood. For years, illegal aliens entering the United States have found employers ready and willing to hire them, often for wages which were substandard and under conditions which ranged from improper to illegal and inhumane. We passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which made it illegal to hire undocumented workers. We have recently beefed up enforcement of this legislation but must continue to do more. Today I am introducing legislation to keep Federal contracts from going to businesses who knowingly hire illegal workers. My legislation makes permanent, President Clinton's February 13 Executive order. Employers who knowingly hire illegal workers should not benefit from Government business and tax dollars. Consider the following two incidents which occurred at work sites in Maryland in March of this year. On March 21, INS agents arrested four illegal immigrants working on Fort Meade Army base. They were building Government town homes under a $24 million Federal contract. A week later, INS agents arrested 12 illegal immigrants removing asbestos from the Fallon Federal Building in downtown Baltimore. Benedict Ferro, INS Director for the Maryland district, noted, ``* * * there is a willingness by employers to hire them. Without that willingness, we wouldn't have this problem. It hurts, these are not jobs that permanent residents of the United States wouldn't want. These are jobs that could be filled by the unemployed in Maryland.'' These are examples of the employers we need to focus our efforts on. Most employers want to comply with the law but for the few that spoil it for everyone, we have to have a tough strategy. Any effort to stem the flow of illegal immigration into our country cannot succeed if the lure of U.S. jobs remains. American jobs belong to lawful workers. A strong worksite enforcement policy discourages illegal workers from crossing the border into the United States in addition to supporting American jobs for citizens and other legal workers. Curbing illegal immigration by enforcing worker protection laws has a direct, if too seldom noted, policy connection. Illegal immigrants are frequently subjected to subminimum wages, dangerous workplaces, long hours, and other poor working conditions because they are desperate for work and in a weak position to insist on their rights. Knowingly hiring illegal immigrants both reveals, and rewards, an employer's willingness to break the law, and undermine wages and working conditions for legal workers. My legislation would ensure that the Federal Government does not reward such conduct with U.S. tax dollars. Labor law enforcement not only helps ensure fairness and minimally acceptable employment standards in the workplace, but also helps to foster a level competitive playing field for employers. Businesses who knowingly hire illegal workers at substandard wages and working conditions have an advantage over employers who do not exploit their workers. INS agents note that companies are willing to hire illegal workers to slash costs and increase profits. This is blatantly against the law and not only unfair to American workers who need the jobs but to other employers who abide by the law and do not boost profits by exploiting their labor. At the same time, by introducing this legislation, I want to make clear that employment discrimination will not be tolerated. Existing Federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of national origin or race. Enforcement of this legislation will not undermine antidiscrimination protection for legal workers. From its beginning, our Nation has been a land of immigrants--people from the world over seeking refuge, opportunity, and a better life for themselves and their families. Like my mother, who came to Iowa from Slovenia. America is the land of opportunity, but America is also a land of responsibility. I remain adamantly opposed to discrimination at the workplace but feel that we must do more to crack down on illegal immigration and those who violate our laws at the expense of American workers.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I understand the floor is open for amendments.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Montana for offering this amendment. I am proud to join with him in this. When I was chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter and I initiated the funding 3 years ago for the demonstration projects for telemedicine. I know Montana was one State, Iowa was another, and there were several other States, I think Georgia, West Virginia, others that were involved in the demonstration projects in telemedicine. One of the reasons that we had the demonstration projects was so that HCFA could develop a reimbursement means and determine how to reimburse. We have enough data. They know. We have had 3 years of these projects. The date the Senator has there, they can do that easily. They can actually do that a lot sooner than that. I think the Senator is generous in giving them that much time. Nonetheless, there is no doubt they have enough data--they have it now--that they can do this. To echo what the Senator from Montana said, telemedicine will improve access to care in rural areas. It will attract more doctors to rural areas because then they will have the necessary backup they need for correct diagnosis and treatment. It will lower costs in rural areas by cutting down on travel, and it will allow more services to be done like at our rural health clinics where they can reach out over a broader area. So this is a very good amendment and one that is going to help a lot in a lot of rural areas in the United States. I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Kennedy's comments, and I hope we can get some of these adopted in conference. I say, again, I appreciate what the Senator from Maine has done over the last few years. He has done a great job of going after these issues of waste and abuse. I have no major objections to what was adopted earlier. Overall, I think it is a great step in the right direction. We probably have been working along parallel paths. I am on the Appropriations Committee and the Senator is on another committee, but I first started having hearings on this 6 years ago, so we have been working on parallel tracks. I do not think there is any need to debate that. I was just saying I do not know that it is necessary before we pass anything around here that we have to have the approval of the administration. I find that kind of an odd concept at this time in the Senate that we have to have that kind of approval. We are the legislative branch. I point out that every single item I just mentioned has gone through a process of hearings. We have had numerous hearings on this. We have had the approval of the inspector general's office and the GAO. The Senator from Maine did mention one item. Out of all of these, there is only one item that HCFA opposes, and that is the provision in there that mandates they use state-of-the-art computer technology. That is because HCFA has been trying to develop its own. I have had some pretty fair battles with HCFA on this. I guarantee the Senator from Maine is right that they do not want that provision. I am going to tell you they are wrong. There is high quality computer software out in the private sector that Medicare can adopt right now. They are wasting money developing their own. And I'm afraid by the time that the system they are developing won't solve the problem. The GAO study and investigation showed that. I have had Medicare intermediaries say that they have the software that Medicare could adopt, and, in fact, I say to the Senator from Maine that Medicare did adopt some changes of the type I've advocated in January of this year. They adopted a little bit of it. It will save some money, but much more could be saved. Lastly, let me just say the amendment of the Senator from Maine does save $3 billion over 7 years. We do not have an estimate on how much this would save. All I know is, just on the computer software alone, that was $600 million in savings. I believe this amendment would save much, much more. Again, I do not see anything here that is controversial but for that one item where HCFA says they are opposed to adopting private sector computer technology. As I said every single item in this amendment is a direct recommendation from the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office or other experts as effective methods to stop waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. This should be a completely noncontroversial amendment. I hope, again, as the Senator from Montana said, that we will not get caught up in jurisdictions. Let us do what is right. What is right is to adopt this and start saving some money in the Medicare system. The amendment of the Senator from Maine is going to save some money. Darn right it is going to save some money. But we can save much more by adopting these other provisions.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand, if I am not mistaken, that we are going to stack these votes. Is the Senator getting a vote right now under the regular order? The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Baucus. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the continuing problem of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system. Over the last several years we have had numerous IG investigations, reports, GAO investigations, and GAO reports. The data is overwhelming. No one can dispute the findings. The Director of HCFA himself has testified before the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee as to the validity of these findings. No one disputes that there is tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. The GAO has estimated that up to 10 percent of Medicare funds are lost to waste, fraud, and abuse every year. Out of a $180 billion program, 10 percent, that is up to $18 billion lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. That is $500 per beneficiary per year. I know that we are not going to be able to get all of it out. I understand that. But at least we can make some important strides in saving a lot of this money. The amendment that was adopted earlier--the Dole-Roth amendment--had some provisions in it to combat fraud and abuse that I have pushed and supported for a long time, including increased resources for the HHS Inspector General and increased resources for Medicare contractors to fight fraud and abuse, and tougher penalties for fraudulent activities. These were in the amendment adopted. I say that these are positive and long overdue steps. As I said, they are steps that I have pushed and promoted for years. However, they are inadequate. There is much, much more that needs to be done and can be done right now to really make a dent in the massive amounts of waste and abuse in the system. Mr. President, every time I go to town meetings in Iowa and I meet with the elderly--or just basically anyone that has been involved in the Medicare system, like people who have had parents or grandparents who have received Medicare help and assistance--whenever you talk about waste and abuse you get an immediate response. They know it exists all too well. When you talk about looking at their bills and ask if they ever look at a bill and see an item on there that they did not really think they received, or maybe paid too much for--you watch the heads nod--they all have, and they are outraged about it. But what they will show you is they will hold up the form that they got from Medicare, and it will have stamped on the front of it, ``This is not a bill.'' A couple of years ago a woman by the name of Shirley Pollock from Atlantic, IA, got hold of me. She had received one of these for her mother-in-law who had been in a nursing home. For something short of 5 weeks' time, she was billed over $5,000 for bandages. She was outraged, because she knew there was no way her mother-in-law had used that many bandages. But on the front it said, ``This is not a bill.'' So Shirley Pollock complained to the Medicare payor about this and was told: Do not worry about it. You do not have to pay it anyway. Well, as Shirley later told me, ``I got so mad because I knew somebody's got to pay it. Obviously taxpayers or people paying into Medicare are paying for it. Someone is paying for it. I know we didn't receive $5,000 in bandages, and I want to do something about it.'' So she contacted my office, and we worked it through and found out, indeed, that she was absolutely right. Her mother-in-law had never received $5,000 in bandages--maybe $500 worth but not $5,000, and yet the bill was paid. The bill was just paid as if nothing had happened. So we know this is going on. And like I said, you can ask any person in a town meeting about this, especially those who have been in Medicare, and they will tell you that they know what we are talking about, too. So I am offering this amendment to add what I believe are a few more important commonsense weapons in this fight against waste and abuse. Now, I will for the benefit of my colleagues state at the outset that there is one provision I have been pushing for for some time that I do not have in this amendment because I know there is opposition to it on the floor. I have offered it before. And that is the idea of competitive bidding. I am not offering that as part of this package because I know they want to get the bill through, and I am for this bill; I am a cosponsor of it. I wish to get it through. But, obviously, unbelievable as it may seem to me and to others, there are some who do not believe that Medicare should adopt competitive bidding when it comes to medical supplies so that seniors and the taxpayers get the best price possible. So I did not include it. I took it out because I know that that some have said it's too controversial. But I am going to be offering that again to get us to competitive bidding, just like the Veterans Administration has been doing for years. It's an outrage Medicare is losing millions because its payment system is prone to abuse and waste. Over a period of years I've compared like bills, like items between Medicare and the Veterans Administration, same city, same supplier. Medicare is often paying 30 to 50 percent more than what the Veterans Administration is. Why is that? Because the Veterans Administration engages in competitive bidding and Medicare does not. But as I said, I have not included that in this amendment. I wanted to make that clear. All of the provisions in this amendment that I have offered are the result of extensive hearings held by the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee over the past several years. They are all recommendations of the General Accounting Office, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services or other private sector medical experts. All of them are commonsense steps, and I just want to review very briefly what they are. First, this would provide for improved information to seniors to allow them to better help in the fight against Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. Seniors would be guaranteed the right to receive itemized bills instead of a summarized report from which it may be difficult to detect billing errors or abuses. Every Medicare payment statement would also have to include a toll-free hotline number to report suspected cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. Now, to those who may say this is a burden, let me just point out that those who are sending in the bills have to keep an itemized record. But when they send it to the beneficiary, they can just summarize it. So the beneficiary can look at it, and a lot of times not even know what they are paying for and a lot of times Medicare does not know what it is paying for. They just pay it, but they really do not know what the itemized bill is. The reason I know that you can go back and find the itemized bills is that the investigations we have done by the General Accounting Office have gone after some of these summarized bills, gone back to the claimant, back to the hospital or the nursing home or the doctor or whoever it might be and said, OK, what made up this summarized statement? Well, they had to produce the itemized bill so that the General Accounting Office could look at it. So they do have that itemized bill. I am saying it is no more of a problem for them just to print that out on the bill they send to Medicare. This amendment would guarantee seniors that they could get an itemized bill so that they know exactly what they were being charged for and how much they were being charged for it. And, as I said, it would also require Medicare to put on each explanation of Medicare benefits a toll-free hotline number so that a person could report any suspected case of fraud or abuse. That is the first part of my amendment. The second part of my amendment establishes rewards of up to $10,000 for those providing information that leads to a health care fraud conviction. Again, it is to get people to step forward, to provide the information that we need, and if it leads to a health care fraud conviction they would be entitled to a reward up to $10,000. The third part of my amendment prohibits Medicare payments for wasteful and unnecessary items such as sports cars for corporate executives, lucrative gifts to executive families and friends, tickets to sporting and other entertainment events, and other items not related to medical care. In one of the most infuriating cases of abuse we found that health care executives were padding Medicare bills with all sorts of outrageous items identified as indirect costs. For example, we found the following items charged to Medicare: $2,433 for a trip to Italy to inspect a piece of sculpture; $10,215 billed to Medicare for clocks, watches, and bowls for employees and friends; thousands of dollars for a golf tournament that was only held for executives; a $4,200 bill for a sporting event, all billed to Medicare as indirect costs. That is outrageous. Now, Medicare did take one step after I prodded them at hearings. No longer will they pay for alcohol or for lobbying expenses as indirect costs. Well, that was a good first step, but they still have not specifically excluded these other items. My amendment would change that. Next, my amendment says that we would reduce Medicare waste by giving the private companies that administer Medicare the authority to reduce payments for items they identify as grossly overpriced. Currently this can only be done on a national basis by HCFA and has only been done once, a process that took HCFA 3 years. I am familiar with that because I initiated it several years ago. We found a blood glucose monitor, a little device that you can buy at Kmart or any discount store; it is for people who have diabetes. They can get an accurate check on what their blood glucose level is. It is a little pocket device with a battery in it. We found that Medicare was reimbursing up to $200 for each one of those. I sent my staff down to the local Kmart. They bought one for $49.99--50 bucks. Medicare was reimbursing up to $200 for it. So I went to Medicare, to HCFA. I said, ``Okay, we have to stop it. You can go down and buy it for 50 bucks. Why are you paying $200?" Believe it or not, from that moment to the day that they actually reduced the price to $50 took 3 years--3 years for them to do that. Well, this amendment would give a private company that administers Medicare the authority to reduce payments on items that they identify as grossly overpriced. So if they found something like a blood glucose monitor that they were reimbursing $200 for and they could buy it for 50 bucks, they could reduce the price down themselves. Again, right now, it takes HCFA over 3 years just to do one simple thing like that. This is a change that has been praised both by Medicare and the HHS Inspector General. Next, my amendment would better assure that rapidly growing home health services are not subject to abuse by requiring that Medicare payments are not inflated by bills being filed in a higher payment area outside of where the service was provided, by establishing a fine for knowingly providing a false certification that a patient meets Medicare home health coverage criteria and by requiring that bills submitted for surgical dressings are itemized. I will just read a little bit from this GAO report that covered excessive payments for medical supplies. Here is what happens. It says: Fiscal intermediaries pay medical supply claims without knowing specifically what they are being asked to pay for on behalf of beneficiaries. The claims submitted by providers have no detailed information that would allow fiscal intermediaries to assess the claims' reasonableness. This lack of detail exists because HCFA guidance allows providers to bill all medical supplies under 10 broad codes. Billed items are not listed by type or amount. A code frequently used to record medical supplies is code 270, that is medical/ surgical supplies, which we found included many different items such as a $21,437 pacemaker, a 75 cent sterile sponge, and even daily rental charges of $59 for an aqua pad. Consequently, unless fiscal intermediaries identify these claims for review and request additional documentation before payment, they will pay for the claims without knowing what the specific purchase was or whether it was covered or medically necessary. Again, my amendment would address that and allow them to get that necessary information so that they would know exactly what they were paying for. That change was recommended and drafted by the General Accounting Office. Next, my amendment would require Medicare to replace its outdated computer systems with state-of-the-art private sector computer software to detect and stop billing abuse. The General Accounting Office found that this simple change would save about $600 million a year. Again, this provision carries out their recommended changes to save seniors and taxpayers money. GAO found, in fact, that a number of the private companies that process Medicare claims use the more sophisticated computer software on their private sector business but are not allowed to use it on their Medicare claims. They actually have to have two computer systems. They have their own that they submit claims to. Then they have another set that they have to have and another set of software just for Medicare. As I said, the General Accounting Office said that just by making this one change, this one change would save $600 million a year, and the cost for doing that was about $20 million. So, again, it would require Medicare to replace its computer systems with state-of-the-art private sector computer technology, just what most private companies are using today to detect and stop billing abuse. As the GAO said, the private sector ones were so much better at detecting fraud and abuse than the Medicare ones were. We have been after Medicare. They say they are going to do this; maybe by the end of 1999 they might have it changed. We could change it right now and, as GAO said, save up to $600 million a year. Last, my amendment saves money and reduces hassle by cutting excessive Medicare and Medicaid paperwork. There would be a uniform application and benefit claims form that would be established and would eliminate duplicative forms. Mr. President, these are really modest steps. Again, these are all steps that the GAO, the inspector general's office, and other private sector health care experts have said are necessary to at least stem this tremendous hemorrhaging of waste and abuse that we have in Medicare. When you are talking about up to $18 billion a year, even if we cannot get all of it, if we could just get half of it, that is $9 billion a year. That is a lot of money. I see no reason why we could not get at least half of it with these modest steps that I am proposing here. As I said, I did not include the one on competitive bidding. We will revisit that at another time. But I thought in the spirit of moving this legislation along and offering something that I thought was modest, that would move us in the right direction, that is why I took out competitive bidding. I offer this amendment to enhance this bill and hopefully make it a better bill for health care in America. That is what this bill is about, is to help us in health care reform. You cannot have real health care reform until you stop the waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. It is in that spirit I offer this amendment. I thank the Senator from Montana for his strong support over the years, trying to weed out this waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. He has been a leader on this subject. I am happy to have him as a cosponsor on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and serve as a cosponsor of the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995. Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy have worked together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that every Senator should support because it will help millions of American families. As a member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I was proud to join in unanimous support for the bill in committee. This is not perfect legislation. It does not fix many of the flaws in the current health care system. But it represents an important step toward reforming health care and injecting some fairness and common sense into the system. While supportive of comprehensive health care reform in the last Congress I also offered a down payment that would have provided for insurance reform, enhanced tax deductibility of health insurance costs for the self-employed, and increased efforts to crack down on fraud, waste, and abuse in health care--all provisions contained in the bill the Senate is considering today. Millions of Americans would benefit from the insurance reform provisions in S. 1028. Provisions that would gradually raise the percentage of health insurance costs that the self-employed can deduct from 30 percent to 80 percent over the next 10 years would provide greater equity with larger businesses. And, I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to increase funds for the inspector general to combat Medicare fraud and establish tougher sanctions for committing fraud. Mr. President, Americans should not be denied health care coverage for changing jobs, getting sick or having a preexisting medical condition. And if someone loses their job, they shouldn't have to lose their health insurance, too. This legislation is designed to respond to those concerns. The Health Insurance Reform Act will provide American families with more security and choices. It will offer some welcome relief for American families worried about losing their health insurance. It will help prevent people from losing their health insurance when they become sick. And it will limit preexisting conditions. These are all fundamental, necessary reforms. I want to thank both Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy for working with all the members of the committee to strengthen the bill. I am particularly grateful for their help in making sure that the legislation prohibits group and individual health plans from establishing eligibility, continuation, or enrollment requirements based on genetic information. I offered an amendment on this issue during committee consideration of S. 1028 and am pleased it is included in the bill. I am also grateful for their help in ensuring that States are given appropriate flexibility. The legislation takes into account the progress already made by States like Iowa which just implemented additional and very significant insurance reforms on April 1 of this year. S. 1028 would allow States to preserve laws such as high risk pools that help small groups and individuals purchase insurance. The provisions in the legislation related to preexisting conditions are important and add some common sense to the current health insurance market. The bill limits the ability of insurers to impose exclusions for preexisting conditions. Under the legislation, no such exclusion can last for more than 12 months. Once someone has been covered for 12 months, no new exclusions can be imposed as long as there is no gap in coverage--even if someone changes jobs, loses their job, or changes insurance companies. The bill also requires insurers to sell and renew group health policies for all employees who want coverage for their employees. It guarantees renewability of individual policies. It prohibits insurers from denying insurance to those moving from group coverage to individual coverage. It prohibits group health plans from excluding any employee based on health status. The preexisting condition provisions will help real people who have already experienced an illness and want to switch insurers or change jobs. For example, just last week a father from Iowa City called my office about his daughter who has a chronic health condition and will graduate from college this spring. He was worried that when she graduates and is no longer covered under his health insurance policy she will not be able to find insurance coverage for her chronic health condition. Because the Health Insurance Reform Act would require insurers to credit prior insurance coverage, his daughter can move to another health insurance plan without being denied coverage for her preexisting condition. The portability provisions in the bill will help with so-called job lock. Workers who want to change jobs for higher wages or advance their careers often have to pass up opportunities because it might mean losing health coverage. The portability provisions contained in this legislation would benefit at least 25 million Americans annually according to the General Accounting Office. And, these provisions will provide greater security for the millions of Americans currently covered under group health plans. I've heard from Iowans who have had to pass up new job offers or forego starting their own small business because they or someone in their family has a preexisting condition. Workers with a sick child are forced to pass up career opportunities because their new insurance may not cover a preexisting condition for 6 months or more. These families have played by the rules and have been continuously insured--they deserve to know that if they pay their insurance premiums for years, they cannot be denied coverage or be subjected to a new exclusion for a preexisting condition because they change jobs. The Health Insurance Reform Act would allow people to switch jobs without worrying about denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Many States, including Iowa, have already enacted standards for insurance carriers. In fact, legislation passed in Iowa is more comprehensive in many respects and includes provisions that help make insurance more affordable for small groups and individuals. But, Federal legislation is necessary because States are prevented from regulating self-funded health plans--the type of plans that cover the majority of Iowans. This legislation will also provide a national floor and a guaranteed level of protection for all Americans. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to not offer amendments that will weaken it. We should keep this bill free of the objectionable provisions that were included in the House bill--provisions which will surely prompt President Clinton to veto the bill, and that will ultimately deny long-needed assistance to millions of middle-class American families. Organ Donation Insert Card Act

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that requires all Department of Defense noncombat aircraft to have both cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders. I was shocked to learn that the airplane that crashed in Bosnia with tragic loss of 35 lives including Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce was not equipped with those important devices. We need to thoroughly understand why any plane crash occurs. With that knowledge, was can better protect other planes of a similar type. In this case, the Department of Defense plane used was very similar to civilian aircraft. In other cases that may not be true. But, in all cases, we need to fully understand crashes and near crashes to better improve our safety record. The bill provides that the Department of Defense should establish rules to require that noncombat aircraft contain those devices within 120 days of enactment and that the devices be in place within 1 year. The legislation provides that the requirements for the Department be as similar as possible to those used by the FAA. On April 9, I wrote to Secretary Perry about this issue and asked how many DOD noncombat planes do not have these devices and what would be the cost of placing those devices into those aircraft. It is possible that there may be some narrow category of non-combat aircraft where these devices would not be appropriate because of the specialized nature of the aircraft or extreme cost. If that is the case, I look forward to learning about the specific situations involved. There may be a need for some exceptions. But, I believe that the Congress should move forward to require that these devices be on DOD aircraft as quickly as possible. I hope that we will act to pass this legislation, perhaps with some modification, very quickly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Commonsense Middle- Class Tax Relief Act. Today, middle-class Americans are working longer hours for smaller paychecks. American families deserve a raise. And that's just what my legislation provides--a raise in incomes, a raise in education and skills, and a raise in living standards. The Commonsense Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is based on a fundamental premise: a higher education means higher income. The bill would provide a $10,000 tax deduction for a person or their parents for the costs of tuition and fees at a college or for a vocational education. The full deduction would be available for families with an adjusted gross income of $80,000 and would be reduced as the income exceeded that level, being completely phased out when the taxpayer's income exceeded $100,000 for joint filing taxpayers. For individuals the full credit would be available for those with adjusted incomes of up to $60,000 phasing out completely at $80,000. For the current year, half of the $10,000 deduction would be available. The full $10,000 deduction would be available starting in 1997 and thereafter. This provision is similar to one proposed by President Clinton. Under existing law, post-secondary expenses can only be deducted under very narrow circumstances: if it is for the improvement of one's skills in a job a person holds above the skills needed to acquire that position, but to acquire additional skills required by the government or the employer to stay in the position. My measure also would restore the exclusion of employer-paid payments of post-secondary college and vocational education costs for improvement of an employee's job related skills that were allowed prior to January 1, 1995. It would make the exclusion permanent. The Commonsense Middle-Class Tax Relief Act will cut taxes on hard- working families trying to get ahead, raise incomes, and prepare Americans for the 21st century. It will mean higher incomes, higher education, and higher quality jobs for hard-working Americans. Mr. President, education is key to both the raising of incomes of average Americans and to increasing the competitiveness of America in an increasingly global economy. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article in the Washington Post by Lester Thurow on this topic be included in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense proposal. We should be able to agree on a bipartisan basis that this type of important middle-class tax relief is needed and will mean better opportunities and better incomes for millions of Americans.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that requires all Department of Defense noncombat aircraft to have both cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders. I was shocked to learn that the airplane that crashed in Bosnia with tragic loss of 35 lives including Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce was not equipped with those important devices. We need to thoroughly understand why any plane crash occurs. With that knowledge, was can better protect other planes of a similar type. In this case, the Department of Defense plane used was very similar to civilian aircraft. In other cases that may not be true. But, in all cases, we need to fully understand crashes and near crashes to better improve our safety record. The bill provides that the Department of Defense should establish rules to require that noncombat aircraft contain those devices within 120 days of enactment and that the devices be in place within 1 year. The legislation provides that the requirements for the Department be as similar as possible to those used by the FAA. On April 9, I wrote to Secretary Perry about this issue and asked how many DOD noncombat planes do not have these devices and what would be the cost of placing those devices into those aircraft. It is possible that there may be some narrow category of non-combat aircraft where these devices would not be appropriate because of the specialized nature of the aircraft or extreme cost. If that is the case, I look forward to learning about the specific situations involved. There may be a need for some exceptions. But, I believe that the Congress should move forward to require that these devices be on DOD aircraft as quickly as possible. I hope that we will act to pass this legislation, perhaps with some modification, very quickly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Commonsense Middle- Class Tax Relief Act. Today, middle-class Americans are working longer hours for smaller paychecks. American families deserve a raise. And that's just what my legislation provides--a raise in incomes, a raise in education and skills, and a raise in living standards. The Commonsense Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is based on a fundamental premise: a higher education means higher income. The bill would provide a $10,000 tax deduction for a person or their parents for the costs of tuition and fees at a college or for a vocational education. The full deduction would be available for families with an adjusted gross income of $80,000 and would be reduced as the income exceeded that level, being completely phased out when the taxpayer's income exceeded $100,000 for joint filing taxpayers. For individuals the full credit would be available for those with adjusted incomes of up to $60,000 phasing out completely at $80,000. For the current year, half of the $10,000 deduction would be available. The full $10,000 deduction would be available starting in 1997 and thereafter. This provision is similar to one proposed by President Clinton. Under existing law, post-secondary expenses can only be deducted under very narrow circumstances: if it is for the improvement of one's skills in a job a person holds above the skills needed to acquire that position, but to acquire additional skills required by the government or the employer to stay in the position. My measure also would restore the exclusion of employer-paid payments of post-secondary college and vocational education costs for improvement of an employee's job related skills that were allowed prior to January 1, 1995. It would make the exclusion permanent. The Commonsense Middle-Class Tax Relief Act will cut taxes on hard- working families trying to get ahead, raise incomes, and prepare Americans for the 21st century. It will mean higher incomes, higher education, and higher quality jobs for hard-working Americans. Mr. President, education is key to both the raising of incomes of average Americans and to increasing the competitiveness of America in an increasingly global economy. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article in the Washington Post by Lester Thurow on this topic be included in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense proposal. We should be able to agree on a bipartisan basis that this type of important middle-class tax relief is needed and will mean better opportunities and better incomes for millions of Americans.