Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 2607 and 2608 be modified with the text at the desk, and that Wellstone amendment No. 2602 be modified with the text of amendment No. 2631.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator if he will yield me a couple minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: For the benefit of all Senators, what is next on the agenda under the unanimous consent agreement?

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the business before the Senate at this time?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. This is the livestock production contract amendment that I offered in December. This amendment furthers one of the most important goals of this farm bill, and that is to promote competition. We had a competition title in the original farm bill I introduced in the committee. Two other amendments have already been adopted: Senator Feingold's amendment prohibiting mandatory arbitration in livestock contracts, and Senator Johnson's amendment on packer ownership. My amendment will address yet one more issue in the competition arena, and that is livestock production contracts and the right to discuss contracts with close advisers. The amendment does two things: It closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under its jurisdiction; and, secondly, it provides livestock producers the ability to discuss terms of their contracts with certain people, such as their attorney, banker, landlord, and Government agencies charged with protecting a party to the contract. Livestock production contracting is an arrangement between a packer or another owner of livestock and a farmer. The basic contract requires a farmer to provide the buildings, the equipment, and the labor to raise the livestock; and the livestock is owned by someone else, the contractor. This type of arrangement differs from the traditional livestock industry structure where the farmer both owned and raised the livestock. In the poultry sector, production contracting is nearly universal and, I might add, has been covered by the Packers and Stockyards Act since 1935. It is becoming more prevalent in hogs, and is growing in the cattle industry. What this amendment would do is protect livestock production growers from unfair and deceptive acts. The same type of fairness rules are common in other markets where people are threatened by inequitable bargaining positions. For instance, Federal law affords similar protections to produce and vegetable growers, automobile dealers, gasoline franchisees, individual securities investors, and livestock farmers who own the livestock. Currently, the Packers and Stockyards Act provides protections for farmers who sell livestock to packers. That has been in the law since 1921. But the act does not protect those who raise livestock, under a production contract, for someone else. The amendment would close this loophole. Current law does not fit current practice. Production contracts, as I said, are becoming more common. In 1990--just 11, 12 years ago--production contracting in the hog industry was almost unheard of. By the year 2000, 34 percent of hogs were raised under production contracts. So again, farmers and ranchers need this amendment because the consolidation and vertical integration of the markets are providing them an unequitable bargaining position. Livestock production contract growers are the ones most at risk of unfair conduct because, like a franchisee, they tend to make large investments to enter into a contract, and then they feel constrained to endure unfair treatment because of their large capital investments. Basically, the amendment would allow a producer to share his or her contract with their attorney, business adviser, landlord, manager, family, and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting parties to the contract. The amendment does not require anyone to share the contract if they do not want to. And it does not say the contract should be made public in any way. The provision even allows contracts between a contractor and farmer to prohibit farmers from sharing a contract with their neighbors or the contractor's competitors, for example. So, again, the amendment enjoys broad support. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers' Union--the two largest general farm organizations--as well as dozens of other farm and consumer groups, support the amendment. It is bipartisan. As I mentioned, there is support on both sides of the aisle for this amendment. I am hopeful we can adopt the amendment. Amendment No. 2607, As Modified; Amendment No. 2608, As Modified; and Amendment No. 2602, As Modified

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes to respond a little bit to the letter written.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Montana, we will work together to try to get this language modified. I guarantee the Senator he will have the opportunity to offer that at some point before we finish this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. A point of clarification: Is that 40 minutes on each of the Burns amendments?

Mr. HARKIN. That is good news. I thank the assistant majority leader for working this out, and I thank Senator Lugar for working this out on all sides. That is progress. So we are going to be able to dispose of four amendments that have been hanging since December, and hopefully that indicates some progress on this farm bill. So I will wrap up my comments very shortly. I was talking about the WTO, and I will wrap it up in terms of income protection for farmers. I describe our bill as having four legs, which makes it very sturdy. We have fixed payments, countercyclical payments, marketing loans, and conservation payments, all of which will help support farming. Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the conservation title. We have been able to accomplish a great deal on the conservation title. It is important in and of itself. Farmers and landowners desire to conserve soil, water, and other natural resources. Sound conservation is one of the best ways for agriculture to continue to build good will with the rest of America. Plus, it is also a way in which we can help promote better farm income. So we have funded programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Those three programs, I might add, are all out of money right now. So every day we do not pass this farm bill and get it through, none of those programs will be funded. We made a large increase for the EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and I think improved that substantially for livestock, dairy, and poultry producers. Our main emphasis in conservation in this bill has been on land in agricultural production. I believe that is where our focus should be, and the Senate bill reflects that. It contains the new Conservation Security Program, which will provide incentive payments for maintaining existing and adopting new conservation practices on lands that remain in production. Thus, it does both, promotes conservation and supports farm income. The other good thing about it is that it is fully within the WTO green box. So whatever we spend to help support farm income does not bump up against our WTO limits. One other thing I will mention before I yield the floor is what I said before, in December--I think I may have said it in committee, too: If this farm bill devolves into being a commodity bill, then I think we will do a great disservice to our farmers and to all of America because we will have narrowed the farm bill to a very small scope of people who produce storable commodities. I think the farm bill is much broader than that. It speaks not only to those who produce the food and fiber and to those who produce our livestock, but also to those who produce fruits and vegetables, specialty crops, orchards, many of the items we buy in our grocery stores that do not come from row crops. And it is even more than that. It is rural economic development. It is small towns and communities. It is making sure we have jobs and economic opportunity in our small towns. This bill has a very strong rural economic development portion to it. There are even things in the bill to get broadband access to our small towns and communities. I happened to meet a farmer this morning from northwest Iowa. I asked him what he was doing here. He said his wife was here on a business trip and he was accompanying her and sort of relaxing a little bit, going down to the Smithsonian and coming to watching the Senate--things like that. I asked him what kind of business his wife is in. Well, it is over my head, but it has something to do with computers and software. So I got to thinking about that and thinking, here is someone who lives in a small town in northwest Iowa doing a job that normally might be done in a large city. Now, again, the problem is getting broadband access so that they have all of the access to the Internet in a high-speed setting. We can develop those types of job opportunities for people who live on our farms in rural America. That is in this bill, too. Commodities, yes, but it is broader than that. Rural economic development, as I mentioned, is so important. That is why in this bill we have a treasury equity fund, a rural business investment program to support equity groups. We have a national rural cooperative and business equity fund to try to get equity capital to rural areas so we can promote the kind of business development we need. We have a fourfold increase in the value-added agricultural product market development grants. These grants help develop solid value-added enterprises owned by agricultural producers. The business and industry loan guarantee program is improved. We provide $100 million a year for broadband Internet access to our small town communities. This is a broadly based bill. I not even touched on the enhanced nutrition, forestry, or trade programs. We put more funds and guidance and direction into the foreign market development program and the foreign market access program. We enhance our trading abilities. For forestry, we have new language and new programs to provide more support for the private forests and renewable forestry incentives. There is a lot more than just commodities in this bill. That is as it should be. Agriculture touches everyone in America. It is more than just that one person on a farm. It is people all up and down the food chain: our processors, shippers, wholesalers, grocery stores, and consumers. We have put a lot in here to protect consumers, to make sure we have the safest and most affordable and steady food supply of any country in the world. That is why this bill is so important and why we have to move this bill. I think it does no one any good to continue a filibuster or delay. I am hopeful with the breakthrough we had this afternoon with these four amendments, we look forward tomorrow to continuing to debate some amendments. I hope some time, perhaps even later today, we can reach an agreement on a finite list of amendments, and how much time. Then we will know exactly when we will finish the farm bill and get to conference and get it to the President as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator want on this amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I think, again, the letter that was read addressed the entire competition title and it was comprehensive. This amendment is much more narrow. It only affects production contracts in livestock. The letter does not point out, nor have I heard anybody point out, any specific negative consequences that could occur from this very limited type of amendment. This provides for fairness in production contracting. It closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act. That act already covers production contracting in poultry and has since 1935, if I am not mistaken. But at that time there was no such thing as production contracting in other areas, such as livestock, cattle, and hogs, it was not addressed. Since then, production contracting has become much more prevalent in livestock. As I pointed out, in 1990, there wasn't such a thing. Now, 30 to 35 percent of all our hogs are raised under production contracts. If we will provide fairness rules for gasoline station owners, for Dairy Queen owners, or securities dealers, or others that are franchisees, to give them a little bit of fairness in their contracts, that is all we are trying to do with our cattle and hog producers. Again, this is to close the loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act. I cannot imagine why our cattle producers or any organization that represents them would be opposed to that. Who are they representing? What organization is going to tell my farmers they can't have protections under the Packers and Stockyards Act like our poultry producers do? The packers, of course, want unlimited power. All we are trying to do is put in some fairness, and this amendment does that. I thank the Chair for yielding this additional time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a Nomination hearing on February 13, 2002, in SH-216 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the following nominations: Thomas Dorr the nominee for Under Secretary of Rural Development; Nancy Bryson, the administrations nominee to serve as general counsel for USDA; and Grace Daniel and Fred Dailey who are nominated to serve on the board of Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we all know that values matter to Americans. It is also becoming increasingly clear that they matter inside the global marketplace as well as outside. That explains why, according to a recent nationwide poll, 77 percent of Americans said they would likely look for a label when purchasing if there was a label on some products to indicate that they were made without the use of exploitive child labor. Most Americans also understand that in today's complex, interwoven global economy, some of our cherished values come into conflict with one another in new and different ways and require very difficult trade- offs. For example, more free trade and free enterprise, as practiced in the real world versus more economic fairness, social justice and environmental sustainability. Recognizing this creative tension, 76 percent of Americans in a recent nationwide poll on globalization said they would pay more and buy a piece of clothing for $25 that is certified as not made in a sweatshop instead of buying the same article of clothing for $20 if they were not sure how it was made. Most Americans clearly want to bring our fundamental values--a sense of fair play, universal respect for human rights and worker rights, better stewardship of our shared environment, and more hope and equal opportunity for our children and grandchildren--into the conduct of international business and investment. But so far the global marketplace isn't readily giving American consumers and investors that choice. Then what were we to do when the Knight-Ridder newspapers in June, 2001 brought us--a nation of chocaholics--face to face with child slavery in the production and harvesting of cocoa beans in the Ivory Coast. This impoverished West African country exports more than 40 percent of the world's supply of this agricultural commodity. To his credit, Congressman Elliott Engel from New York immediately saw the contradiction and reacted with outrage. He took to the House floor last summer and won passage of an amendment to the House version of the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill on a very lop- sided, bipartisan vote. His amendment would have provided $250,000 for the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to come up with a label to attach to all chocolate products for sale and distribution in the U.S. within one year to attest that they were made without any child slave labor. While both the FDA and the chocolate companies quickly protested that such a goal was unrealistic and impossible to attain, I shared Congressman Engel's resolve that clear and decisive corrective action had to be taken. Accordingly, I called representatives of the major chocolate companies to a meeting early last July to underscore the seriousness of the forced child labor problem that had been exposed in their chain of production and to determine what they planned to do about it. I also reminded them at that time that U.S. law currently prohibits the importing of any products made, whole or in part, with forced or indentured child labor. And Senator Kohl, our Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, and I gave notice of our intent to offer an amendment on the Senate floor, if need be, as early as last September. This set the stage for a series of lengthy, intense negotiations, set in motion by Senator Kohl, between ourselves and representatives of the major chocolate companies and cocoa bean processors. I insisted from our first meeting that to avoid Senate legislation, the industry would have to meet two requirements: First, they would have to commit to a set of principles and a time- bound action plan to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, including but not limited to forced child labor, throughout their chain of production and as a matter of the utmost urgency. Second, if and when we might arrive at a mutually-acceptable framework agreement, they--the industry--would have to take that framework agreement to the other, non-industry stakeholders with an interest and expertise in child labor problem-solving and persuade them to participate as full partners in hammering out and fulfilling all of the requirements in this agreement on a mutually-acceptable basis and according to firm, prescribed deadlines. I am happy to say these fundamental requirements were met when the Harkin-Engel Protocol on the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa and Chocolate Industry was signed and announced publicly last October 1. This unprecedented framework agreement that will result in a credible, public certification system of industry-wide global standards within 4 years to attest that cocoa beans and all of their derivative products have been produced without any of the worst forms of child labor as clearly defined in ILO Convention No. 182. We knew at the outset that it would not be easy to achieve this breakthrough. While there were strong, initial objections raised about labeling by some industry spokespersons, it also became clear in the course of our negotiations that a reliable labeling system could be developed, given the political will and incentives to do so. Officials of the ILO and some company representatives themselves acknowledged it could be achieved in this far-flung industry in 3-5 years. It was a matter of how quickly industry-wide standards could be defined, implemented, and subjected to effective, independent monitoring, and public reporting by all major stakeholders. Let me be clear. The Harkin-Engel Protocol on the Worst Forms of Child Labor is a very good agreement, but it is not perfect. It is a breakthrough that sets out a specific, finite timetable during which something will be built incrementally that has never existed before-- the capacity to publicly and credibly certify worldwide that cocoa beans and all of the products made from them have been produced and processed free of any of the worst forms of child labor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have copies of this unprecedented agreement and its underlying principles re-printed in their entirety in the Record following my remarks. It is to be called the Protocol For The Growing And Processing Of Cocoa Beans In A Manner That Complies With ILO Convention 182 Concerning The Prohibition And Immediate Action For The Elimination Of The Worst Forms Of Child Labor.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to briefly highlight key provisions that together make this framework agreement a real breakthrough: First, it requires the industry to publicly acknowledge the use of forced child labor and to assume primary responsibility, including financial responsibility, for ending these intolerable practices. This is only fair and right. Second, it requires the industry to partner and bargain every step of the way with the other major stakeholders cocoa producers, organized labor, non-governmental organizations, consumer groups and governments among them--who have an interest and expertise in achieving the abolition of the worst forms of child labor in this sector. Last December 1, all of these stakeholders hammered out and signed a mutually-acceptable joint statement that recognizes and affirms their shared commitment to act together with urgency to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the cocoa and chocolate business. I ask unanimous consent that this public statement also appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Furthermore, by next May, a binding, public memorandum of cooperation must be agreed among all of the major stakeholders that establishes a joint program of research, information exchange, and action to enforce internationally-recognized standards to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor from this sector of agriculture and food processing worldwide. Third, by next July, this industry will have made its initial down- payment of funds to establish a new international foundation to oversee and sustain over time the global effort to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products. This will be a private, non-profit foundation governed and administered by all of the major stakeholders. The support of field projects in the Ivory Coast and other cocoa- exporting countries along with the establishment of a clearinghouse on best practices to eliminate the worst forms of child labor will be among its initial purposes. Fourth, this framework agreement must yield within 4 years the first- ever global capacity in this sector to publicly and credibly certify that the cocoa and chocolate products we eat and enjoy every day have been produced without any child slavery or use of any of the worst forms of child labor. This will be a giant step forward. A very diverse set of stakeholders has publicly committed ourselves for the first time in America and abroad to rooting out and ending the worst forms of child labor and forced labor, wherever they exist. The resulting system of public certification should take us 99 percent of the way during the next 4 years toward a credible and effective means of empowering consumers to reliably do the right thing. It would be my hope and expectation at that point in time, if not sooner, that one or many of the stakeholder companies will take the final step and decide for itself that it is in their own interest as well as the public interest to give their customers what most consumers in America and around the world want--products with a reliable label ensuring that none of the worst forms of child labor have been associated with their production. Now I want to conclude my statement by recalling the life and vision of a great American, Milton Hershey, whose legacy from the 20th century is relevant to the 21st century challenge that has brought the Harkin- Engel Protocol into being. He grew up in family in Pennsylvania that was almost always broke and constantly on the move. Neighbors remembered seeing him as a boy going about the streets barefoot, selling berries door-to-door. But as a young man, he started a small company making caramels--The Lancaster Caramel Company--and built it into a thriving interstate business. At the age of 33, he was wealthier than he had ever dreamed. That was even before he started the Hershey Chocolate Company in a back corner of his caramel factory. The rest is history, as he went on to give America our first five-cent milk chocolate candy bar and became fabulously rich. But it was Hershey's philanthropic example that stands out and is most relevant. In 1909, just 6 years after breaking ground for his first chocolate factory, he and his wife set up a trust fund to found a school for poor, orphaned boys. The Hershey Industrial School continues to flourish today, having provided a good home and a better chance in life for nearly a century for countless thousands of American children in need. In fact, at a comparative young age, he donated his entire estate to the Hershey Trust Fund for the benefit of the school, including land and all of his stock valued at more than $60 million in 1918. Today, Milton Hershey's remarkable gift is worth more than $5 billion and the school is one of the richest private education institutions in our country. It continues to provide a home and quality education to more than 1,000 students every year--girls and boys of all races and religions who come mostly from broken families in poor inner-city neighborhoods. If he was alive today, I think he would approve of this unprecedented framework agreement and the collaborative, child labor problem-solving process it has set in motion. He wouldn't see these child slaves in the Ivory Coast as children of a lesser god. Surely, he would open his heart and his wallet to do no less for the impoverished and powerless children of the Ivory Coast, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, and all the other cocoa-producing countries. All of the stakeholders in this breakthrough agreement should do no less. Now we have to roll up our sleeves, go to work building certification capacity, and meet all of the deadlines to confidently eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor from the cocoa and chocolate business worldwide once and for all. In so doing, we will have hopefully blazed a new trail and provided a worthy model that is transferable to other industries where millions of child laborers work in darkness and without prospects for a brighter future. Exhibit 1 Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Vienna, VA. Protocol for the Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans and Their Derivative Products In a Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Form of Child Labor Guiding Principles: OBJECTIVE--Cocoa beans and their derivative products should be grown and processed in a manner that complies with International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. ILO Convention 182 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. RESPONSIBILITY--Achieving this objective is possible only through partnership among the major stakeholders: governments, global industry (comprised of major manufacturers of cocoa and chocolate products as well as other, major cocoa users), cocoa producers, organized labor, non-governmental organizations, and consumers. Each partner has important responsibilities. This protocol evidences industry's commitment to carry out its responsibilities through continuation and expansion of ongoing programs in cocoa-producing countries and through the other steps described in this document. CREDIBLE, EFFECTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING--In fashioning a long- term solution, the problem-solving process should involve the major stakeholders in order to maximize both the credibility and effectiveness of the problem-solving action plan that is mutually-agreed upon. SUSTAINABILITY--A multi-sectoral infrastructure, including but independent of the industry, should be created to develop the action plan expeditiously. ILO EXPERTISE--Consistent with its support for ILO Convention 182, industry recognizes the ILO's unique expertise and welcomes its involvement in addressing this serious problem. The ILO must have a ``seat at the table'' and an active role in assessing, monitoring, reporting on, and remedying the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products. Key Action Plan and Steps to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor: (1) Public Statement of Need for and Terms of an Action Plan--Industry has publicly acknowledged the problem of forced child labor in West Africa and will continue to commit significant resources to address it. West African nations also have acknowledged the problem and have taken steps under their own laws to stop the practice. More is needed because, while the scope of the problem is uncertain, the occurrence of the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products is imply unacceptable. Industry will reiterate its acknowledgment of the problem and in a highly-public way will commit itself to this protocol. (2) Formation of Mutli-Sectoral Advisory Groups--By October 1, 2001, an advisory group will be constituted with particular responsibility for the on-going investigation of labor practices in West Africa. By December 1, 2001, industry will constitute a broad consultative group with representatives of major stakeholders to advise in the formulation of appropriate remedies for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products. (3) Signed Joint Statement on Child Labor to Be Witnessed at the ILO--By December 1, 2001, a joint statement made by the major stakeholders will recognize, as a matter of urgency, the need to end the worst form of child labor in connection with the growing and processing of West African cocoa beans and their derivative products and the need to identify positive developmental alternatives for the children removed from the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products. (4) Memorandum of Cooperation--By May 1, 2002, there will be a binding memorandum of cooperation among the major stakeholders that establishes a joint action program of research, information exchange, and action to enforce the internationally-recognized and mutually-agreed upon standard to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products and to establish independent means of monitoring and public reporting on compliance with those standards. (5) Establishment of Joint Foundation--By July 1, 2002, industry will establish a joint international foundation to oversee and sustain efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products. This private, not-for-profit foundation will be governed by a Board comprised of industry and other, non-government stakeholders. Industry will provide initial and on-going, primary financial support for the foundation. The foundation's purposes will include field projects and a clearinghouse on best practices to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. (6) Building Toward Credible Standards--In conjunction with governmental agencies and other parties, industry is currently conducing baseline-investigative surveys of child labor practices in West Africa to be completed by December 31, 2001. Taking into account those surveys and in accordance with the other deadlines prescribed in this action plan, by July 1, 2005, the industry in partnership with other major stakeholders will develop and implement credible, mutually- acceptable, voluntary, industry-wide standards of public certification, consistent with applicable federal law, that cocoa beans and their derivative products have been grown and/or processed without any of the worst forms of child labor. We, the undersigned, as of September 19, 2001 and henceforth, commit the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and all of our members wholeheartedly to work with the other major stakeholders, to fulfill the letter and spirit of this Protocol, and to do so in accordance with the deadlines prescribed herein. Mr. Larry Graham, Chocolate Manufacturers Association. Mr. William Guyton, World Cocoa Foundation. witnesseth We hereby witness the commitment of leaders of the cocoa and chocolate industry evidenced on September 19, 2001 and henceforth to fulfill the letter and spirit of this Protocol to eliminate the worst forms of child labor from this sector as a matter of urgency and in accordance with the terms and deadlines prescribed herein. Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Herbert Kohl, Congressman Eliot Engel. Ambassador Youssoufou Bamba, Embassy of the Ivory Coast. Mr. Frans Roselaers, Director, International Labor Organization. Mr. Ron Oswald, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF). Mr. Kevin Bales, Free The Slaves. Ms. Linda Golodner, National Consumers League. Ms. Darlene Adkins, The Child Labor Coalition. We personally support the protocol entered into by industry Protocol for the Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans and their Derivative products In a Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor and look forward to its successful execution which we support wholeheartedly. Gary Guittard, Guittard Chocolate Company. Edmond Opler, Jr., World's Finest Chocolate, Inc. Bradley Alford, Nestle Chocolate & Confections USA. Richard H. Lenny, Hershey Food Corporation. Paul Michaels, M&M/Mars, Inc. G. Allen Andreas, Archer Daniels Midland Company. Henry Bloomer, Jr., Bloomer Chocolate Company. Andreas Schmid, Barry Callebaut AG.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That is the amendment which this Senator offered yesterday; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: I want to make sure what the business is before the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN. I withhold.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Comparison of Net FFY2002 State Funds Impact of Senate and House Provisions to Harkin Amendment. Harkin: 3% all + 1.5% high unemployment + hold harmless.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Baucus and Senator Daschle, by their amendment, put in a 1.5-percent increase to all States. The second part was, because of unemployment measures previously calculated, some States were scheduled to go down in 2002 in their Federal match. The amendment before us under Senator Baucus holds those States harmless. That is about 29 States that would have lost money this year. And under the Baucus amendment, they are held harmless. The third part is that States with high unemployment would receive an additional 1.5 percent in their 2002 Federal match. This would provide assistance to about 16 States that have very high rates of unemployment. This policy proposal is extremely important for the States. The pending amendment I have offered would only change one part of that. It would take the 1.5-percent increase for all States and increase it to 3 percent. In other words, it would add 1.5 percent to the Federal match for all States. I believe that is important because when the committee developed this bill and the stimulus package, the National Association of State Budget Officers had predicted a $15 billion shortfall for the States for 2002. That was last fall. By the end of the year, the National Association of State Budget Officers had updated their prediction for the shortfalls in our State budgets to $38 billion--in other words, double. I have heard from my Governor --and I know others have heard from their Governors and their legislatures-- about the cuts they are going to have to make in their State budgets. The problem is, one of the places where they have to cut, because that is the biggest pot for most States, is Medicaid. If a State cuts $1 out of their budget on Medicaid, they may lose $2 or $3 or $4 of Federal money. I don't know what it is for the Presiding Officer's State, and I don't know what the Medicaid match is there. I do know in Iowa it is about 3 to 1. So that for every dollar the State would not have in their budget for Medicaid, they would lose $3 of Federal money. It isn't only that the State cuts its Medicaid budget by $1 and hurts one Medicaid recipient. If it cuts Medicaid by $1, it is hurting three or four times as many people. It has that kind of a multiplier effect. While I am very supportive of what Chairman Baucus and Senator Daschle have done, we recognize now that these new projections of the shortfalls in our State budgets command us to put more into the program of reaching these States for their Federal match. On the other two aspects of the amendment, on the one that holds States harmless, that is still in my amendment. And on the other one that provides the 1.5-percent increase to the States with unusually high unemployment, that is there also. I wanted to make sure that every State received the amount of Federal matching money they need. Again, another reason why this is so important is because most States have a requirement in their Constitution that they have to balance their budgets. It is a constitutional requirement. They can't get around it. When they start cutting, if they do across-the-board cuts, which seems at first blush to be the most logical, they just do a straight percentage across-the-board cut, Medicaid, being the biggest part of the State budget, gets whacked the most. Then they lose the Federal dollars that come in as a match. I believe this is critically important for our States. I also believe State fiscal relief is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. The Federal dollars we send out for Medicaid help to avert State budget cuts or tax increases that could be detrimental to the States in any economic recovery. People in my State of Iowa and all across the Nation have enough trouble finding affordable, quality health care. They need our help and support during this recession. When it comes to protecting the vulnerable in these difficult times and getting our economy back on track, putting Iowans and all Americans back to work, it is critically important that we make sure that those who are out of work--they may have lost their jobs; Medicaid may be the only source of health care for them and their kids during this period of time, and then looking at the States and facing the budget crunches they have--it became clear that we had to add a little bit more money to this effort. Again, I thank the chairman for focusing on this issue as he has done and for the work he has done in putting in that 1.5 percent. It has become clear in the last few weeks that the States are going to need more than 1.5 percent. That is why I have offered this amendment in a friendly manner to ensure that we meet our obligations to the States to get the money out there so that these people who are the most vulnerable don't fall through the cracks. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending business before the floor is amendment No. 2719, offered yesterday by Senator Reid on this Senator's behalf. I rise to speak for a few minutes on that amendment. I thank the Senator from Montana for giving me the courtesy of going first because of the time schedule I have this afternoon. Senator Baucus and Senator Daschle have provided great leadership on this important issue of the stimulus. There is one part of the amendment that is before us that is vitally important to all of our States as we are facing this downturn in the economy. That part of the amendment deals with the Federal share for Medicaid recipients in the States. It is called FMAP, the Federal Match for Medicaid Program. Under the provision in the underlying Daschle amendment, and under the leadership of Senator Baucus, they did provide for three things. They provided a 1.5-percent increase to every State in their 2002 Federal match for Medicaid. That would provide about $3.5 billion in additional Federal Medicaid payments to the States. I have a chart which shows what that would mean for every State and what my amendment would mean for every State. I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.