Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the assistant majority leader. I hope we can vote on this next week sometime.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on September 5, 2002, in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the decline of oak tree populations in southern states caused by prolonged drought and red oak borer insect infestation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii about the significant efforts made by the Committee bill to address the well- being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Of particular interest to me is peer reviewed medical research that examines Gulf War Illnesses and their relationship to Chronic Multi-Symptom Illnesses. I believe that this research, which is conducted by the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research is providing valuable insights into undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Thursday, August 1, 2002 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting will be to discuss the nomination of Mr. Tom Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to consider disaster assistance legislation. committee on indian affairs

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on Saturday, June 22, our Nation lost one of its great heroes: My good friend, Justin Dart, Jr. Today, my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Gregg, and I are introducing a bipartisan resolution to honor Justin Dart. His memorial service will occur tomorrow, July 26, the 12th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Justin Dart was the godfather of the disability rights movement. For 30 years he fought to end prejudice against people with disabilities, to strengthen the disabilities right movement, to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Millions of Americans with disabilities never knew his name but they owe him so much. Justin was instrumental to the passage of the ADA and many other policies of interest to individuals with disabilities. When President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, he gave the first pen to Justin Dart. He truly was the one who brought us together and give the inspiration and guidance to get this wonderful, magnificent bill through. I was proud to be at his side when he received the Medal of Freedom from President Clinton. Today we are proud to introduce this resolution to honor him and commemorate his tremendous contribution to the lives of Americans with disabilities across this country.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today deeply disappointed by the outcome of the final agreement on the supplemental appropriations bill, which deleted the Senate recommendation of $400,000,000 for dislocated worker assistance under the Workforce Investment Act. I know that to break the impasse with OMB to get this supplemental enacted, with vitally important items for national defense and homeland security, the leadership of the House and Senate had to agree to reduce the overall size of this supplemental. Our leadership was hard-pressed by the administration to accept unpopular cuts. Sadly, the final agreement eliminated all supplemental funding for dislocated worker assistance. Most disturbing was the elimination of the $110,000,000 component which had been requested by the administration, and included in both House and Senate versions of the supplemental, to restore last year's rescission of dislocated worker funding. This rescission was enacted when it appeared there was sufficient unspent carryover funding in a brandnew workforce system, and Congress needed to offset an emergency supplemental for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Since that time, spending by local workforce agencies has accelerated, while the economic downturn has resulted in a continuing, nagging rise in unemployment. In the last year, more than 2 million workers have lost their jobs. Fortunately, July marks the beginning of a new program year under the Workforce Investment Act, and $1,549,000,000 in new dislocated worker funding will be available for the next 12 months. Of this amount, the law provides that the States receive $1,239,200,000, or 80 percent, with the remaining $309,800,000 available for the Secretary of Labor to target areas particularly hard hit by mass layoffs. Nevertheless, I am fearful that the deletion of supplemental funding will send the wrong message to local sponsors of job training projects that will cause them to slow down spending of funds that are so desperately needed by the growing numbers of dislocated workers. As chairman of the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to do my best to send a strong message that Workforce Investment Act funding will be maintained despite the attempt of the President to slash more than $500 million out of the fiscal year 2003 budget. At my recommendation, the Senate Appropriations Committee has fully restored these proposed cuts in the fiscal year 2003 budget, recommending a total of $5,633,364,000 for job training for the program year beginning in July of 2003. We rejected the President's proposal to cut dislocated worker assistance by $177,500,000, maintaining the appropriation at $1,549,000,000. We also fully restored the President's proposed cuts of $362,000,000 in youth job training programs, recognizing that young adults, ages 16 to 24, have been disproportionately affected by the decline in total employment over the past year. I wish we could have done more, but our subcommittee's allocation was extremely tight. In conclusion, let me say I am not at all satisfied with the level of resources devoted to employment and training services, and I intend to work with my colleagues to explore every means to further augment assistance for the more than 8 million Americans who are now unemployed.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I was listening to the comments made by my friend from Oklahoma. It is too bad he wasn't here in 1965 because he could have joined the chorus of voices on that side of the aisle that argued against Medicare. He would have fit right in. If you read the debate, it is almost like listening to it again. So it is too bad my friend wasn't here in 1965. He could have led the charge against Medicare.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I heard the Senator from Oklahoma. Talk about a Harry Houdini magic trick and trying to pull a funny curtain over issues. If you are below 150 percent of poverty, then it picks up 95 percent, but what he is not telling you is there is an assets test. Take someone in Iowa who has an automobile worth $4,500. We need cars in Iowa. We do not have mass transportation. If you have a $4,500 car, you are not eligible for less than 150 percent of poverty. That is the assets test. If you have a burial plot worth $1,500, then you are out of the 150-percent poverty test; $2,000 worth of furniture, you are out. They are not telling you that. Have him stand up and tell you about the assets test and tell my elderly in Iowa, many who are below 150 percent of poverty, that they cannot have a $4,500 car, that they cannot have a $1,500 burial plot, that they cannot even have $2,000 worth of furniture in their house. If they do, they do not qualify. Go ahead and tell them that. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask for 1 minute to respond.

Mr. HARKIN. Would you buy any kind of insurance--say a homeowners policy, and if your house burned down, you would pay 91 percent? Or if your car gets wrecked and it has to be fixed up, you would pay 71 percent of the fees. What kind of insurance proposal is that? It is nonsense, not insurance. It is just another rip-off for the drug companies. Again, this does not provide adequate coverage and it doesn't contain costs. Two weeks ago, I had a roundtable discussion in Iowa with insurers, business leaders, and consumers about drug costs. They were united in saying that not only are rising drug costs hurting seniors, they are a growing problem for employers trying to maintain affordable health insurance for workers. It is a problem for younger workers, feeling the pinch of higher health insurance premiums and cost sharing as a result. These Iowans were adamant, saying that any bill we pass has to have some new tools to hold down the rising drug prices. Only the Graham-Miller bill makes progress toward cost containment. It includes a bipartisan plan that will close the loopholes that have allowed drug companies to block lower cost generics from coming on the market. It addresses the issue of the 30-month rollover that they get all the time. The bill on that side doesn't do that. It is crucial because generic drugs cost a fraction of what the name brand equivalent costs, and they are just as safe and effective. But only the Graham- Miller bill addresses that issue of bringing generics on the market and providing for that competition with brand names. The Graham-Miller bill has the Stabenow amendment, which will allow States to provide the discounts they get through Medicaid to others in the State, including seniors. There is also the important Dorgan amendment, which says drugs could be reimported from Canada by pharmacists. If you want to know how important this is, talk to my friend Marie, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Council Bluff. She dedicated 43 years of her life to helping others. She told me she is lucky compared to her friends because she is only on three medications. She recently got an advertisement from a drug company in Canada that would sell her drugs to her for less. She did some research and got a prescription from her doctor. She is saving over $80 a month right now. She has a friend who takes tamoxifen, an anticancer drug for breast cancer. She tried buying her tamoxifen from the Canadian company. In the United States, it cost her $319 for a 3-month supply. It cost her $37 from Canada. The problem with that is that individuals are doing that, and they are leaving out their local pharmacists. It is vitally important for the elderly to have communication and a relationship with their local pharmacist to make sure they are taking the right drugs and the right dose. While I think it is fine for seniors to get their drugs from Canada reimported, we have to make sure local pharmacists can do the same thing. Let them reimport the drugs from Canada at that same price. The Republican bill does not do that, but the Graham-Miller bill does. Today we have a chance to pass a bill that will contain costs, that will provide affordable and reliable prescription drug coverage without gaping holes. We have the chance to make sure we bring generics on the market sooner to provide competition and to let our pharmacists reimport drugs from Canada at a cheaper price for our consumers. All of that is in the Graham-Miller-Kennedy amendment, not in the Grassley-Breaux-Jeffords, et al, amendment. If you want good coverage, if you want to close the loopholes, vote for the Graham-Miller bill and not the fake substitute on the other side.

Mr. HARKIN. I said I will yield when I get through with my statement. So the Graham-Miller proposal is the one that does it through Medicare. It is the one on which seniors can rely, and it is rock solid. This is the proposal the Republicans have right here on this chart. For example, they say, under their plan, a senior with $1,000 in drug care costs still pays $913. That is 91 percent that they still have to pay. And 18 percent of seniors have drug costs of about $250. Under this, they would pay everything. Eighteen percent have drug costs of $1,000. Under the Republican proposal, they would pay 91 percent, $913. Seventeen percent of seniors have $2,000 in drug costs a year. Under the Republican proposal, they would pay $1,413, or 71 percent. Twenty- three percent of seniors--about one out of four--have $4,000 a year in drug costs. Under the Republican bill, they would pay $2,688 out of pocket, or 67 percent. If they have $5,000 in drug costs, they are going to pay 74 percent out of pocket. What kind of insurance is that, where you are paying 91 percent, 71 percent, 67 percent, or 74 percent out of your own pocket? Would you buy insurance like that?

Mr. HARKIN. They cut them in half, or they decide whether or not to pay their heating bills in the winter or take their drugs; and when they have to cut back on their drugs, they get sicker and sicker, and they go to the hospital, and of course then Medicare pays for all their drugs.

Mr. HARKIN. I only have 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I am just taking it from your approach here because you want to basically--what the Senator is saying is he wants to turn this over to the insurance companies. A lot of people wanted to do that in 1965, to turn Medicare over to the insurance companies.

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield when I get done.

Mr. HARKIN. The point is, the Senator from Oklahoma and other people on that side are saying turn it over to the insurance companies. He talks about rationing, but what the Republicans want to do is give private insurers a free ride, charge seniors whatever they want, and then they will be able to tell them what drugs they take. That is what the insurance companies do now anyway. Look at the debate on Medicare. Turn it over to the insurance companies. You can just go back to 1935 and look at the debate on Social Security. We have heard the same echoes all the time down through the years that we cannot do this. Well, it is time we do it. It is time we make good on the promise to 44 million Americans who rely on Medicare. The choice is very clear: You either do it under Medicare, which is proven and has a proven track record; it cuts out all of the middlemen in the middle ground and gets the drugs right to seniors, or you can go in the other direction and say we will do it through the insurance companies, which is exactly what the bill on the Republican side proposes to do. I know a little bit about this personally. My father was quite old when I was born. When I was in high school, my father was already in his late sixties, and he had worked just enough quarters to qualify for Social Security. He worked most of his life in coal mines, but during the war and right after the war he worked enough just to qualify for Social Security. But he would get sick every winter. We didn't have drug coverage. He would go to the hospital, and thank God for the Sisters of Mercy, who would take care of him and send him back home again. I happened to be in the military in 1965 when Medicare passed. I came home on leave and saw my father, and he had his Medicare card. Head held high, he could go in and be taken care of without relying on charity. But the one thing that was missing was prescription drugs. My father is long gone, but for others since that time, the one thing that is missing is prescription drugs. I have never been able to understand why it is that if you get sick and you go to the hospital, Medicare pays for all your drugs, but if you want to stay healthy, stay at home, Medicare won't pay for your drugs. That has never made sense to me. It seems to me you would want to get the drugs to the elderly to keep them as healthy as possible, to keep them at home, so they don't go to the hospital. My friend from Oklahoma mentioned rationing. We hear rationing, rationing. I say to my friend, go to Iowa right now and talk to the low-income elderly in Iowa. Here is their rationing. They cannot pay for their prescription drugs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on July 16, 2002 in SD-562 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the proposed ban on packer ownership and also the enforcement of the packers and stockyards act. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness will conduct a hearing on July 18, 2002 in SR-328A at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss S. 532, the Pesticide Harmonization Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on July 17, 2002 in SH-216 at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss homeland security. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on July 10, 2002 in SD-106 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss energy derivatives. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our economic system is based on transparency. Investors need accurate financial information about a company so that they can make informed investment decisions. They need information they can trust. Getting honest information requires accountability and honesty from three entities: corporate executives, stock brokers, and public auditors. Clearly, we are seeing breakdowns, if not outright criminality, at all three levels. And it requires additional accountability at all three levels in order to restore investor confidence. First, we must expect that corporations present an honest portrait of the companies economic health and well-being. Corporate executives who cooks the books are no different than used car salesmen who roll back the car odometers, both are engaged in a fraud. They must be held accountable for their actions and severely punished. Second, we must expect brokers provide their investors with honest, accurate, and unbiased advice. I stress unbiased. Unfortunately, many brokerage firms have a conflict of interest because they bring in businesses and increase their own profits by pushing bad stocks. One recent report indicated that 94 percent of Wall Street firms continued to recommend stocks for companies that went bankrupt this year up to the very day that companies filed for Chapter 11. Third, we have to expect that public accounting firms are acting as watchdogs over corporate financial statements. Yet many of the auditing firms, not just Arthur Andersen, have had major failures. Accounting firms gave a clean bill of health to over 93 percent of publicly traded companies that were subsequently involved in accounting problems within the year. And 42 percent of publicly traded companies that filed for bankruptcy were given a clean bill of health. Clearly, we need fundamental reform at all three levels to restore investor confidence and punish criminal behavior. Some say may say that Enron, Worldcom and the others are a few bad apples. That ignores the much wider, systemic problems that now plague corporate America. Advocating half measures or saying that we do not need to strengthen the law is like saying that bank robbery should not be severely punished and banks should not have vaults because most people do not rob banks. Well, some people do rob banks. And some corporate executives rip off investors. But they are both criminals and both should be punished accordingly. I commend Chairman Sarbanes for his accounting reform bill, S. 2673, which is an excellent start at providing for stronger rules regarding accounting procedures. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Leahy's ``Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act,'' that is now being offered as an amendment. Will some key executives go to jail if this amendment passes? If they are guilty of fraud or destroying evidence of wrong doing, I certainly hope so. First, the amendment creates a new crime for security fraud and helps prosecutors punish corporate criminality. This amendment is a lot like the ``Go to Jail'' card in the board game ``Monopoly.'' It says to corporate criminals ``go to jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200.'' The amendment also increases penalties for obstruction of justice. The people who would shred documents to cover up criminal behavior are not better than the ``wheel man'' in a robbery. They may not have pulled the robbery, but the crook cannot getaway without them. This amendment would make sure the shredders are held accountable as well. Incidentally, the amendment also lengthens the statute of limitations on these crimes and protects corporate whistleblowers. Corporate criminals should not be allowed to run out the clock and avoid prosecution. And workers who discover corporate fraud should be protected just as we protect government whistleblowers. I believe this amendment will go a long way toward preventing corporate crime and prosecuting those who would rip off their stock holders and employees. Restoring confidence and punishing criminal behavior is in everyone's best interest--honest corporate executives, their employees, investors, and the public at large. I urge adoption of the amendment and look forward to seeing it become law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will not read the whole thing but I feel constrained to read parts. He said: I am with you. I love you. Lead on. Dearly Beloved: Listen to the heart of this old soldier. As with all of us the time comes when body and mind are battered and weary. But I do not go quietly into the night. I do not give up struggling to be a responsible contributor to the sacred continuum of human life. I do not give up struggling to overcome my weakness, to conform my life--and that part of my life called death--to the great values of the human dream. Death is not a tragedy. It is not an evil from which we must escape. Death is as natural as birth. Like childbirth, death is often a time of fear and pain, but also of profound beauty, of the celebration of the mystery and the majesty which is life pushing its horizons towards oneness with the truth of mother universe. The days of dying carry a special responsibility. There is a great potential to communicate values in a uniquely powerful way--the person who dies demonstrating for civil rights. Let my final actions thunder of love, solidarity, protest-- of empowerment. I call for solidarity among all who love justice, all who love life, to create a revolution that will empower every single human being to govern his or her life, to govern the society and to be fully productive of life quality for self and for all. That was written by a man who knew he was dying. Justin continues: I do so love all the patriots of this and every nation who have fought and sacrificed to bring us to the threshold of this beautiful human dream. I do so love America the beautiful and our wild, creative, beautiful people. I do so love you, my beautiful colleagues in the disability and civil rights movement. My relationship with Yoshiko Dart includes, but also transcends, love as the word is normally defined. She is my wife, my partner, my mentor, my leader and my inspiration to believe that the human dream can live. She is the greatest human being I have ever known. Continuing to speak about his wife he said: Yoshiko, beloved colleagues, I am the luckiest man in the world to have been associated with you. Thanks to you, I die free. Thanks to you, I die in the joy of struggle. Thanks to you, I die in the beautiful belief that the revolution of empowerment will go on. I love you so much. I am with you always. Lead on. Lead on. He was truly one of the most beautiful humans with whom I have ever been privileged to associate. We shared many memorable moments together. I was proud to be at his side when he received the Medal of Freedom from President Clinton. But I always remember best, and forever in my mind's eye will be embedded, him sitting there, next to President Bush when President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Not many people know it, but Justin Dart, with that wheelchair and his wonderful wife Yoshiko, visited every one of the 50 States in order to lay the groundwork for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And Justin knew that our work did not end with the ADA. He knew it was just the beginning. Even just a few short weeks ago he attended a rally I was at for MiCASSA, the Medicaid Community-based Attendant Services and Supports Act, a bill that Senator Specter and I are cosponsoring. I was surprised that Justin was there but very pleased to see him leading, as usual, even though I knew that his health had not been good. He had to curtail many of his activities. But we had a couple of hundred people there from the disabled community and, I am telling you, his voice was as strong and as powerful and as persuasive as I have ever heard, and that was just a couple of weeks ago. To the very end he had that fire in his eyes and that strong voice. In the final week before he passed away, Justin personally attended four events to push for more civil rights for people with disabilities. He never hesitated to emphasize the assistance he received from those working with him--as you can tell from the letter I just read, most especially his wife of more than 30 years, Yoshiko Saji. She was, as he often said, quite simply the most magnificent human being. As in life, Yoshiko was at his side when Justin passed away this weekend. He is survived not only by Yoshiko and their extended family of foster children, many friends, colleagues and relatives, but also by millions of disability and human rights activists all over the world. The average American may not ever have heard of Justin Dart. They may go through their lives never having heard of him. But I will tell you this, any person with a disability in this country who has struggled and fought, gone to school, moving ahead in life, they will know who Justin Dart was and they will know what he did for them and for our country to make our country more inclusive, to bring us altogether. So I will personally miss Justin Dart: that strong voice, the cowboy hat and the cowboy boots, that piercing gaze of his that sort of stripped away all the phoniness of life. When he rolled up in that wheelchair and he got in front of a microphone and started to speak, it was power, passion, commitment. It will not be the same in the struggle for civil rights for people with disabilities. It will not be the same in our struggle for MiCASSA, which we have to pass. People with disabilities are about the only ones left in our society where the Government decides what they are going to do with you rather than what you do with the money. MiCASSA says that, basically the money should follow the person--not the person following the money. Quite frankly, it was a Georgia case in which the Supreme Court decided that people with disabilities had to first be able to live in the most open setting, in a community-based setting in their homes and in their communities rather than institutions. It was a great case in the State of Georgia. This legislation is proposing what Justin worked so hard for-- basically to say let the person decide, let that individual decide whether they want to live in their home and not in a nursing home. That is what this fight for MiCASSA is all about. I am sorry we didn't get it passed before he passed away. But I can assure you that the fight will continue. We will not rest until people with disabilities have all the rights that people without disabilities have in our society. Justin will be remembered as a person who removed all these barriers. We will miss his passion, his sense of justice, his unwavering leadership, and, as I said, his strong and clear voice. Justin Dart will continue to inspire us to carry on. His message will continue to speak for the next generation of leaders. I always said to Justin: Hang in there. We almost lost him a couple of years ago when his leg was removed. I said: Justin, you have to hang in there. He always said: There are more behind me. And there are. A whole new generation of young people is coming up under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They have been able to go to school, they have gotten an education, and they are moving on. They are not going to let the clock be turned back. I am convinced that sooner, rather than later, we will get the MiCASSA bill passed and permit people with disabilities to live in their own homes. We will do it in the name of Justin Dart. In his name, we will remove the last remaining barriers.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Saturday was a sad day for America and for all who have fought so hard for the rights of people with disabilities in our society. On Saturday, our Nation lost one of its great heroes: My good friend, Justin Dart, Jr. Justin Dart was the godfather of the disability rights movement. For 30 years he fought to end prejudice against people with disabilities, to strengthen the disabilities right movement, to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Millions of Americans with disabilities never knew his name but they owe him so much. Justin was born August 28, 1930. His grandfather was the founder of the Walgreen Drug store chain. His father was also a very successful businessman. Justin was the son of privilege and wealth, but he became the brother of the forgotten and the downtrodden, those whom society left on the roadside of life. From the time that polio left him a wheelchair user in 1948, to this past Saturday when he passed away, Justin lived a life dedicated to social justice for people with disabilities and for all people regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation. He is, of course, best known as the godfather of the disabilities rights movement and the father of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Justin was both a close personal friend of mine and a mentor for me on disability policy. When I first came to the Senate--after having worked in the House on a couple of disability issues because I had a brother who was disabled; I came to the Senate in 1985--at that time there was a big movement on to pass a Civil Rights Act for Americans with disabilities. I got caught up in that. I wondered, is it possible we could ever pass a civil rights bill for people with disabilities? Through a set of circumstances and fate, I became the chairman of the Disability Policy Subcommittee and then became the lead sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It was under my sponsorship on that committee, and with the guiding hand of Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was the chairman of the full committee, that we were able to get the bill through both the House and the Senate, signed into law July 26, 1990, by President George Bush. When I first got here and became involved with the disability rights movement and with the jelling, the pulling together of all these people to get the Americans With Disabilities Act passed, it did not take me long to realize it was Justin Dart who was pulling the pieces together. For so many years, the disability community has been segregated and segmented--the deaf community, the blind community, those who used wheelchairs, those with mental disabilities, those who had illnesses and diseases. Various forms of disability had their own segments but no one brought them together under an umbrella. It was the power and the force, the magnetism of Justin Dart that brought it together, that made it into a movement whereby we could actually get the Americans With Disabilities Act passed. It was fitting that on July 26, 1990, we all gathered on the White House lawn for the biggest gathering for a bill signing on the White House lawn in the history of this country. It was a gorgeous, sunny day. We were all there. Senator Dole had been a great companion in helping get the bill passed on the Senate side; so many people from the House side, including Tony Coelho, Steny Hoyer, but there on the platform was President Bush and Justin Dart. It was right that he was there on that platform. When President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, he gave the first pen to Justin Dart. He truly was the one who brought us together and gave the inspiration and guidance to get this wonderful, magnificent bill through. The rest, as they say, is history. Go anywhere in America today and you will see people with disabilities in workplaces, in schools, traveling with their families to restaurants, going to theaters, going to sports arenas. All new buildings have wide doorways, ramps everywhere. No building being built today is not accessible--because of the Americans With Disabilities Act, because of Justin Dart. What a tremendous legacy. Justin was a recipient of five Presidential appointments, numerous honors, including the Hubert Humphrey Award of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. In 1998, Justin Dart received a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award. Before he passed away on Saturday, Justin left a letter. I don't know exactly when it was written. But I think Justin knew that his time on Earth was not going to be much longer. He had a series of setbacks. He lost his leg just about 3 years ago. We thought we lost him then, but, man, he came back strong and continued to lead. He wrote this letter, which is just so profound. I ask unanimous consent to have this last letter from Justin Dart printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

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