Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, the Senator has made a very important point here. This is something that has been planned for some months.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further. Watching and observing the flow of legislation through here during the spring and summer and how it was slowed down, we did not filibuster. Things just did not happen. Like in the Agriculture Committee, we could not get our ag bill through. We still do not have an ag bill this late in the year. Now it occurs to me perhaps this was a design all along to create this impasse; to create an impasse so that we would have the kind of train wreck that we are looking at here with the shutting down of the Government. Just too many of these things fit together. It indicates to me that this has been part of an overall plan for some time.

Mr. HARKIN. What was the date of those remarks?

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator from North Dakota is making a very important point. I think a lot of people are confused who think this has happened over the last couple of days and it just sort of happened because things did not work out right. If I understand what the Senator from North Dakota is saying, and reading the quotes of Speaker Gingrich as long ago as April, this has sort of been a plan to create this kind of train wreck, and the Senator quoted Speaker Gingrich saying this back in April. I think the American people ought to understand that this is not something that just happened; that because the Speaker and his allies have not been able to get their work done in time--I will ask the Senator, is it not true that we did not filibuster, we did not stop these bills from going through?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which will provide a broad range of natural resource and energy related benefits to our country. This bill provides support for the development of processes which utilize renewable resources for generation of electricity and other energy products. It lessens our county's dependence on imported oil, supports development of new markets for farmers producing energy crops utilized in this process, and provides positive environmental benefits to the soil, water, and air components of our Nation's natural resources. This bill provides the Secretary of Agriculture authority to permit the production and harvesting of energy crops for the purpose of generating electricity and other energy products on land enrolled in the various acreage reduction programs as well as specifically designated demonstration project areas containing land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. The future of utilizing renewable resources such as energy crops as a fuel for producing electric power and other energy products is bright. However, as in any emerging technology, support is often needed to develop its full potential. The 1992 Energy Policy Act authorized a Renewable Energy Production Program in support of this concept. The bill I am introducing today complements this effort by not only permitting the production of energy crops on land enrolled in various government programs, but also providing an cost-share incentive to establish these energy crops. One relatively new scientific finding is the benefit of energy crops with regard to carbon sequestration. Colorado State and Washington State Universities have developed protocols to assess the impact of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program specifically on carbon sequestration. Their initial findings indicate that America's grazed land and Conservation Reserve Program lands offer an extremely important environmental benefit of extracting carbon from the air in an amount equivalent to America's forests. Encouraging the production of energy crops as I am suggesting in this bill will help sustain and expand this natural process enhancing air quality. With regard to land enrolled in the various acreage reduction programs, this legislation would: (1) authorize the Secretary to permit production and harvesting of energy crops in accordance with a conservation plan, and (2) provide a cost share component for the establishment of these crops. With regard to land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, this bill would: (1) provide the Secretary of Agriculture authority to permit production and harvesting of energy crops in designated demonstration project areas not exceeding an aggregate of one million acres based on competitive joint industry/landowner proposals, (2) provide a cost share component for the establishment of energy crops, (3) provide for a process by which landowners could identify the level of reduction in their annual CRP rental payments in exchange for the opportunity to participate in this program, and (4) an opportunity for Conservation Reserve Program participants, utilizing these provisions, to extend their contracts. I am proud to be introducing this bill today and welcome other Senators to cosponsor this beneficial environmental and energy legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which will provide a broad range of natural resource and energy related benefits to our country. This bill provides support for the development of processes which utilize renewable resources for generation of electricity and other energy products. It lessens our county's dependence on imported oil, supports development of new markets for farmers producing energy crops utilized in this process, and provides positive environmental benefits to the soil, water, and air components of our Nation's natural resources. This bill provides the Secretary of Agriculture authority to permit the production and harvesting of energy crops for the purpose of generating electricity and other energy products on land enrolled in the various acreage reduction programs as well as specifically designated demonstration project areas containing land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. The future of utilizing renewable resources such as energy crops as a fuel for producing electric power and other energy products is bright. However, as in any emerging technology, support is often needed to develop its full potential. The 1992 Energy Policy Act authorized a Renewable Energy Production Program in support of this concept. The bill I am introducing today complements this effort by not only permitting the production of energy crops on land enrolled in various government programs, but also providing an cost-share incentive to establish these energy crops. One relatively new scientific finding is the benefit of energy crops with regard to carbon sequestration. Colorado State and Washington State Universities have developed protocols to assess the impact of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program specifically on carbon sequestration. Their initial findings indicate that America's grazed land and Conservation Reserve Program lands offer an extremely important environmental benefit of extracting carbon from the air in an amount equivalent to America's forests. Encouraging the production of energy crops as I am suggesting in this bill will help sustain and expand this natural process enhancing air quality. With regard to land enrolled in the various acreage reduction programs, this legislation would: (1) authorize the Secretary to permit production and harvesting of energy crops in accordance with a conservation plan, and (2) provide a cost share component for the establishment of these crops. With regard to land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, this bill would: (1) provide the Secretary of Agriculture authority to permit production and harvesting of energy crops in designated demonstration project areas not exceeding an aggregate of one million acres based on competitive joint industry/landowner proposals, (2) provide a cost share component for the establishment of energy crops, (3) provide for a process by which landowners could identify the level of reduction in their annual CRP rental payments in exchange for the opportunity to participate in this program, and (4) an opportunity for Conservation Reserve Program participants, utilizing these provisions, to extend their contracts. I am proud to be introducing this bill today and welcome other Senators to cosponsor this beneficial environmental and energy legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have been able to work out the details on this legislation to clear the way for its passage today. It seems that we have been working on this issue for quite a long time, and it is gratifying to reach this resolution. Certainly this bill will provide a significant measure of regulatory relief to [[Page S 16620]] those in the food and agriculture industry who have been affected by the imposition of regulations on the storage, transportation, and handling of edible oils that are really designed for hazardous petroleum oils. Senator Lugar and I introduced legislation to resolve this instance of unnecessary regulation a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the measure passed in the same bill by both the House and Senate last fall, although it did pass both houses in different bills. I was pleased to join Senator Lugar again this year in reintroducing the legislation along with Senator Pressler. I am also grateful for the help provided by Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus in working out modifications to the bill to ensure that it will adequately address the problems we are seeking to solve without potentially creating unintended or unforeseen problems. This legislation is simply designed to bring common sense to Federal regulations involving the transportation, handling, and storage of edible oils. Common sense tells us regulations pertaining to these substances need not, and should not, be as stringent as those applicable to other oils, such as petroleum oils or other toxic oils, which pose a far more significant level of health, safety, and environmental risk in the event of a spill, discharge, or mishandling. Animal fats and vegetable oils are essential components of food products that we consume every day. The scientific evidence indicates they are not toxic in the environment, are essential nutritional components, are biodegradable, and are not persistent in the environment. Regrettably, a commonsense approach to regulation of animal fats and vegetable oils has been more difficult to achieve than one might think, as the experience under implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 demonstrates. Although some of the problems have been worked out, there still exists in the industry substantial uncertainty whether regulators will properly differentiate edible fats and oils from petroleum and other toxic oils. This legislation will resolve the uncertainty and eliminate the costs associated with this kind of unnecessary regulation. The bill will not exempt edible oils from regulation, but will only require that regulators differentiate animal fats and vegetable oils from other oils, including petroleum oil, considering differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the effects on human health and the environment, of the classes of oils. The bill will do no more than alleviate the substantial threat of overregulation of animal fats and vegetable oils in ways that clearly could not have been intended by Congress. It will bring some reasonableness and clarity to issues that are now characterized by confusion and uncertainty.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Edward Byrne Grant Program is one of the most successful Federal-State crime prevention efforts ever. Working in partnership with State and local governments, the Byrne Program helps local law enforcement improve their criminal justice systems and make communities safer by helping to prevent crime. Law enforcement officials all across Iowa have told me of the success they have had as a result of these funds. Drug enforcement task forces, improved law enforcement technology, the DARE Program, domestic violence intervention, and countless other valuable antidrug and anticrime efforts have been possible because of the Byrne Grant Program. Unfortunately, Mr. President, violence, like a communicable disease, has spread to every part of our country and our State. To eradicate this epidemic of violence we must attack both the problem and the symptoms. While the Federal Government cannot have all the answers, the Byrne Program is an important part of the solution. Byrne funding enhances law enforcement initiatives focused on battling criminals already invading our streets, as well as aiding law enforcement in their ongoing efforts to help communities prevent crime before it happens. The Byrne Program also promotes cooperation among State and local law enforcement agencies to improve the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. A shining example in Iowa is the multijurisdictional drug task forces that form the backbone of Iowa's effort to combat drug related crimes. These task forces are composed of State and [[Page S 16634]] local law enforcement officers as well as State and local attorneys. They cover almost 70 of Iowa's 99 counties. Officers pool resources and equipment to carry out drug investigations and the attorneys provide legal advice to ensure a sound drug investigation. In Waterloo, IA, the State and local task force even works with the U.S. attorneys office to form a Federal, State and local crime fighting team. And Mr. President, like a one-two punch, the Byrne Program's special emphasis on drug abuse prevention gets to the heart of the problem and moves us toward a long-term solution to crime prevention. Violent crimes committed by youth have increased over 50 percent from 1988 to 1992 and drugs are a major factor in many violent crimes. DARE--drug abuse resistance education programs, put police officers in schools talking to kids about drug abuse. DARE programs serve 70,000 Iowa students. Traditional drug abuse programs dwell on the harmful effects of drugs. Iowa's DARE programs help students recognize and resist the many subtle pressures that influence them to experiment with alcohol and other drugs. Violence in this country will be reduced because of officers on the front line making a difference in their community and getting the resources they need to do the job. The Byrne Grant Program is a critically important component in halting the increased incidences of crime and violence in our society. I was pleased that our push for increased funding for the Byrne Grant Program paid off. The fiscal year 1996 Commerce, State, Justice bill passed by the Senate, provides a $25 million increase over last year's funding. We need to build on the progress we have made in our fight against crime and continue to support successful and effective programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was greatly disappointed by the vote of the Senate last Friday to open the ANWR to oil exploration. This was a tremendous mistake that, if uncorrected, will be a significant blow to the environment. Mr. President, it is time for government to practice fiscal responsibility. However, we should not destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] in an effort to balance the budget. Our children do not deserve to inherit a huge debt. However, they do deserve to inherit our Nation's abundant wildlife and wilderness in the same or better condition as we did. Cheating our children of this inheritance is not sound fiscal policy. The attempt to open the ANWR for the exploration of oil is not something new. In fact, a battle has been developing for over 15 years. Congress has voted to protect this area in the past and must continue to fight this battle and preserve the ANWR in the future. The Budget Committee claims that opening the ANWR for oil exploration may generate $1.4 billion in leasing revenues during a 4-year period. This sounds like a lot of money and is a lot of money. Yet, this figure represents a mere two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget deficit. Should we sacrifice a unique ecological environment whose value is priceless in order to pay off less than one-half of 1 percent of our total debt? This just does not make sense. Oil is valuable and can be priced. But how can we price the 150,000- member porcupine caribou herd that migrates [[Page S 16632]] to the ANWR each year to give birth to their calves? How can we price the culture of the Gwich'in people who have been in northeast Alaska for 20,000 years? How can we price an entire ecosystem that is the life support of over 165 different species? Mr. President, inclusion of the ANWR provision in our budget reconciliation plan is unacceptable. It is not fair to our children and future generations to come. I urge the conferees to drop this ill- advised antienvironment provision from the bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If that is the ruling of the Chair, the Social Security law must be naked to attack under reconciliation. Would not section 310(g) of the Budget Act be now rendered meaningless by the precedent the Chair is now setting?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Wellstone, Heflin, and Bumpers. Basically, Mr. President, this is an agricultural substitute. It cuts $4.2 billion out of agriculture, not the $12.6 billion that is in the bill. It provides for a two-tier marketing loan system for wheat and feed grains. And we offset the cost of the bill by striking the provisions of the bill affecting the alternative minimum tax. So basically, if you want a fairer farm bill for our farmers and rural people, this is it. It only cuts $4.2 billion, not the $12.6 billion in the bill. And we do have an offset.

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. One last parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. One last parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. One last----

Mr. HARKIN. Is the Chair ruling, as pertains to the ruling on Senator Graham's point of order, is the Chair ruling that the Social Security Act, title II, may be changed within the reconciliation process by drafting a provision to read, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law''?

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair then ruling that by that very sentence, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' that that would, in fact, cover title II of Social Security since it is law? And that, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' therefore, that overcomes title II of Social Security?

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. HARKIN. Section 7482 on page 45 of the pending amendment, line 22, states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . .'' Parliamentary inquiry. Is this not referencing title II of Social Security?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. I raise a point of order under section 310(g) of the Budget Act because the pending amendment achieves its savings by changing the cost-of-living provisions of section 215 of the Social Security Act, and changing title II of that act violates section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the so-called Benedict Arnold amendment. Many of the very wealthy individuals who renounce their U.S. citizenship then later reside in the United States for up to 180 days. Under this amendment, such individuals would resume paying taxes in the United States as if they were resident aliens similar to U.S. citizens if they would stay in the United States for 30 days. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, if you believe that waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare is just a small problem, then you want to just support the bill and the Abraham amendment that was added to it and vote ``no'' on this amendment. If you have followed the hearings that I have held over the last 5 years showing that what GAO says amounts up to 10 percent of Medicare spending goes for waste, fraud and abuse, this is up to $17 billion a year. If you have followed those hearings or read the numerous GAO and Inspector General reports, then you know we just cannot go after the small things in waste, fraud and abuse. We have to go after the big game. We have to take a truly comprehensive approach to combatting this bilking of the taxpayers and our elderly. Now, the bill has some good provisions in it. I will not deny that. The Abraham amendment which I voted for is also pretty good. But that just takes a nick out of it. What we have to do is go after it with every thing we can. The taxpayers and the elderly deserve no less. My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Graham and Biden, both of whom who have worked hard to tackle this problem, makes a number of important changes. It requires Medicare within 6 months must use state- of-the-art commercial software to find billing abuse. GAO estimated the first full year savings of making this common sense idea at $640 million. Next, my amendment prohibits Medicare payments for unnecessary and inappropriate items like fines owed by health care providers for violations of Federal, State or local laws, personal auto use, tickets to sporting events, entertainment, and other things like that. Believe it or not, Medicare still has no specific prohibition against paying for those kind of items. Third, my amendment reforms payments to ambulances as recommended by the inspector general. It also reduces paperwork by requiring a standardized claim form for Medicaid and Medicare. Most important, and the heart and soul of this, it requires competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, medical supplies, and oxygen paid for by Medicare. The Veterans Administration has been doing this a long time and the difference in payments is dramatic. How can you say you do not support it in Medicare when you have it in the VA, when the VA spends 4 cents for the same bandage that Medicare spends 86 cents for? Oxygen--Medicare spends $3,600 for rental of oxygen; the Veterans Administration pays less than half that. That is because the Veterans Administration has competitive bidding and Medicare does not. It is time we have good old competitive bidding in Medicare. That is what this amendment does. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Nebraska.