Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I was hoping there might be a reasonable outcome. As I said, the Record will show earlier I said there were two problems with the amendment. One was with adulteration, which the Senator took care of. The other was the word ``promulgated.'' If the Senator will further modify his amendment to say that future rules must be promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, that would settle the issue once and for all. That means any future rulemaking done by USDA would have to be done with the advice of this committee, but that the existing rules meanwhile will stay in effect and be enforceable. If the Senator will do that, we are done.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield. Amendment No. 3955, As Modified, Withdrawn

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi if I can engage in a colloquy. The Senator's amendment now reads ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''

Mr. HARKIN. All I want to be satisfied about is that there will be enforceable standards in effect. From what I hear, I like it. I want the committee to be involved in advising the Secretary. If the Senator tells me that the present rules that have been promulgated are still enforceable during the pendency of that consultation, then I have no problem. But the language says USDA can only enforce a standard if it is ``promulgated with advice''. I am wondering what this means for the standards we have right now. I want to clear this up. Can the rules we have now be enforced? Or can only rules that are promulgated in the future be enforced with the advice of the committee? That is where we are hung up over these words. Words do have meaning. I will say again, if the interpretation is that the standards that are now in effect remain enforceable, and that any future rules adopted by the Secretary have to be done with the advice and consultation of the committee, I have no problem with that. Then we don't have a gap. And I hope that is the meaning.

Mr. HARKIN. As I said, I----

Mr. HARKIN. I have no problem with that. If that is the intent, to say--I will repeat to make sure I do not misunderstand--that the Senator's intent by using the word ``promulgate'' is to say that any future rulemaking--I want to make sure the Senator hears my words, to make sure I am OK on this--that any future rulemaking done by the Secretary of Agriculture has to be done with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and that during any rulemaking when they are seeking that advice, the present standards will stay in place and be enforceable, that is fine.

Mr. HARKIN. As the Senator and I were talking earlier, lawyers can argue about words and what they mean. Still, the words that are used in the Senator's amendment seem to indicate to me we have to go through rulemaking. Again, I am concerned, if that is how it is interpreted, then we are going to have a period of time that we may not have any enforceable standards. That is what I want to clarify. That is why I wanted to engage in the colloquy. I do not believe it is clear, on its face, exactly what it means. If it means that the standards we have now were promulgated with sufficient advice that we would not need new rulemaking, then that is okay. That is why we need some legislative history on this. That is why I was trying to engage in a colloquy. I ask the Senator from Mississippi: Does his language mean USDA will have to go through rulemaking again? Does this leave a gap in the standards? That is all I am trying to get to. Maybe if we can talk about it a little more, we will get to this thing. I don't know. Sometimes it is hard.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I understand that. But I am concerned about the words ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' I don't mind that. They were involved with the standards established in 1996. If it is the Senator's intention that the Department of Agriculture should go ahead, go back and take a look at whether or not they should revise those rules and those standards, I don't have any problem with that. That is what rulemaking is all about. I am worried that we will have a gap of time where we will have no enforceable standards. That is why I want to make sure that at least during the period of time when they may be revising those standards the existing standards remain enforceable. My concern, again, is if someone were to raise a question about the extent at which the existing standard was set with the advice of the committee, I want to make sure that would not bar enforcement. If we had a colloquy to clear that up, that standards would stay in place pending any changes in rulemaking, that would be fine. I ask if that is the Senator's intention.

Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Amendment No. 3955, as modified

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, can we have a vote on the amendment, please?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I am proud to join my distinguished colleague, the Senior Senator from Utah, in supporting this endeavor. This proposed increase in FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an important component in the overall effort to implement fully the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. It also continues our mutual efforts to promote better public health and consumer safety. The FDA monitors adverse events related to dietary supplements. The dietary supplement sales have doubled in the past five years. In fact, surveys indicate that nearly half of all Americans use some type of dietary supplement, spending over $12 billion annually for these products. FDA estimates that the industry markets approximately 29,000 of these products, which are sold under 75,000 distinct labels.

Mr. HARKIN. Over the past several months, my staff and I have had the pleasure of discussing this collaboration between Iowa State University, New Mexico State University, and the Agriculture Research Service with representatives of the National Center for Genome Resources, and want to express my support for establishing this institute. It would bring research scientists from the State Agriculture Experiment Stations and ARS together with the expertise in bioinformatics and software platforms developed by NCGR and its work on the Human Genome Project. Through this combination of expertise, the institute would greatly reduce the chances of having to ``reinvent the wheel,'' so to speak, as genomic research continues to expand into greater numbers of agricultural plant species.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and look forward to working with him in the Conference.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman not moving to table right now. I listened as closely as I could, while conversing with my staff, to the comments made by my friend. I hope we can engage in a colloquy on this. We are talking past each other. Obviously, the chairman had to leave the floor, but I hope we can engage in a colloquy on this because this is a very serious matter. I don't want there to be misperceptions out there. The Senator from Mississippi just got through saying, more than once, that what we are being asked to do is codify a regulation. I would like the Senator from Mississippi to show where in my amendment it codifies a regulation. It is not there. I challenge my friend from Mississippi to show that. It is not there. I said explicitly in my statement that my amendment does not codify any regulation. It is not there. So if the Senator from Mississippi says that my amendment codifies a regulation, I challenge him to show where and how. I think that is a misperception. Secondly, again, let's be clear on what we are talking about here. Is it reasonable, I ask, for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has the statutory power to inspect meat and poultry products, which it has for many years, is it reasonable for the USDA to also inspect and set some standards for the reductions of packaging bacteria that is on our meat and poultry products? If the answer to that is no, it is not reasonable, then I guess you could vote to table my amendment because that is where we will be. We will be at a point where what we would be saying is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture should not have any authority to establish pathogen reduction standards nor any authority to enforce them. I suppose they could test them. But they could never enforce them. I think that is what we have to ask ourselves: Is it reasonable for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set pathogen reduction standards and then to be able to enforce them? I said in my opening statement, and I say again to my friend from Mississippi, my amendment does not codify any regulation. Yet, if I am not mistaken, I heard my friend from Mississippi state in his comments that we are being asked to codify a regulation. I carefully drafted the amendment not to do that. If the Senator from Mississippi can show how we codify our regulation, we would be glad to change the amendment. It is not there. That is a misperception. All this amendment says is that the USDA has the statutory authority to both set a pathogen reduction standard and then to enforce it. That does not mean a packer or a processor couldn't challenge those standards as being unreasonable or not applicable. That still can be challenged. Any rule or regulation can be challenged in court. Let's take the Supreme Beef case, I say to my friend from Mississippi, where the Supreme Beef packing plant had failed the salmonella standard reduction three times. They had failed it three times before the USDA stepped in and withdrew its inspection, thereby basically shutting the plant down. Again, keep in mind that the plant did not go to court to challenge the standard. They went to court and said USDA doesn't have the statutory authority to set the standard or to enforce it. The court found that USDA did not have that statutory authority. Here is a plant that failed three times to meet the salmonella reduction standard. They had been warned. They knew it. Keep in mind that a lot of this ground beef from Supreme Beef goes into our School Lunch Program. Go out and tell the parents of America they can send their kids to school and they can eat ground beef in school but we are not going to enforce any bacteria reduction standards such as salmonella in our packing plants. Supreme Beef failed it three times. Now they can fail it four or five times. They will have no standards whatsoever--none, zero, zip--because the USDA will not be able to enforce its salmonella reduction standards. I think what Supreme Beef should have done was challenge, if they wanted to, the reasonableness of that standard. They could go to court and get a stay to keep operating and then show the court that the standard that was imposed on them by USDA and by which USDA is shutting down their plant by refusing inspection is unreasonable, unwarranted, and inapplicable. Fair enough; let them do that. But they cannot even get there because they said USDA doesn't have the authority to do it. That is where we are. If we take no action, that is where we are. Supreme Beef can go ahead and keep right on operating. They don't have to worry about any salmonella reduction. They can keep pumping that food right into the School Lunch Program. The chairman indicated that there is a USDA scientific advisory committee that may review this standard this fall. I welcome that. Nothing in my amendment would prevent changes based on those recommendations. Nothing in this amendment would do that. Again, one has to ask oneself, should the USDA have the authority under the HACCP program to issue pathogen reduction standards and then to be able to enforce those? Again, I go back to my chart. Since the pathogen reduction standard for salmonella went into effect in 1996--it is so prevalent and makes people pretty sick--rates in ground beef dropped 43 percent in our smaller packing plants and 23 percent in our larger plants. That is success. That is why plants all over America have not challenged this in court. They seem to be doing quite well with it. Only three plants in the entire United States have failed to meet this standard--three--Supreme Beef, of course, being one of them. As I said, since the HACCP rule was implemented in 1996, 51.2 foodborne illnesses per 100,000 people went down to 40.7. It is working. Yet because of one plant in Texas that decided to thumb its nose at the salmonella reduction standard--obviously, they had a good attorney--they went to court and said USDA does not have the authority either to set the standard or to enforce it. The court said: You are right, they don't, because Congress never gave them that authority. I want to clear up one other thing. I am told the USDA is not opposed to this amendment. They are not taking a position because of pending litigation because they are in the courts right now because of this pending litigation. The USDA has a charge to ensure lower bacteria counts. Again, it is not the power to arbitrarily shut down a plant because of the appropriateness of a specific USDA standard. The standard is still subject to review by a court. I want to make that as clear as I can. No. 1, I challenge my friend from Mississippi to show me how my amendment codifies the regulation. I challenge my friend to show that. He has said that. I have carefully drafted it so that it does not codify any regulation. The regulations can change. The advisory committee can meet. Maybe they want to change these standards--I am speaking here regarding this amendment--but I don't know why they would want to change a standard that has been so successful, by which every packing plant in America today is abiding, except three, one of them being Supreme Beef that brought this case. It is not that technical. All we are doing is asking, through this amendment, to give USDA the authority to set the standard and enforce it--not what standard. This amendment does not give the USDA the authority to set a standard that I specify and to enforce that standard. It says to set pathogen reduction standards and to enforce them. Obviously, if they set a standard that is unreasonable, inappropriate, and inapplicable, that can be challenged in court. They can be challenged in the rulemaking process. That is the way it is done. But if we continue as we are right now, there is no reason for any plant in America to abide by these salmonella reduction standards because USDA has no authority to enforce them. They could go into a plant and say: Gee, you know, you are right above salmonella; that is above our standard. The plant can say: So what. Get out of here. We don't have. I don't think that is what the American people want or the American consumers want. I don't believe it is what the vast majority of packers and processors in America want. They want the public to have the highest level of confidence that their meat and poultry and meat products and poultry products are wholesome and without bacterial contamination. It is too bad because of one bad actor--one plant in Texas that failed three times to meet the standard, and on the fourth time, after having clear warnings, the USDA came in and withdrew the inspection, which effectively shuts down the plant--we have to throw the whole system out and say the USDA does not have the authority. That can open the floodgates for plants all over America. I say to my friend from Mississippi, there is no codification of any regulation, none whatever. It is only giving the USDA the authority under which it has been operating for 4 years, which has been successful. Only three plants in America have failed to meet standards. I think that is a good success story. I don't think we ought to not give the authority to the USDA to continue on this pathway simply because of one bad actor in Texas and because of the fact that we failed in our statutory deliberations and in our statutory approach to give the USDA this authority. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. We should have at some point statutorily given the USDA this authority. We did not do so. That is what this amendment seeks to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry; I was under the mistaken impression that there was a time limit. I stand corrected. I want to talk for a few minutes about the pending amendment. In some conversations I had last night and earlier this morning previous to coming to the floor, I found that there may be some misconceptions about my amendment and what it seeks to do. So I would like to take the time to try to clarify it. I did not think there would be opposition to it. It was merely to clarify a situation that has arisen in a court case in Texas. So in the next few minutes I will try, as best I can, to try to outline it and clarify exactly what this amendment is and what it intends to do. Everyone in the food chain, from the farm on through to the table, has a vital stake in the USDA food safety and inspection system for meat and poultry products. This goes back many years. As the years have evolved, and as our processes for growing, slaughtering, processing, packaging, transporting, and the selling of meat and meat products and poultry products has changed, we have changed the way we do things. As Secretary Glickman once I think so adroitly explained, the days of poke and sniff have to be over. We need new inspection standards because of the rapidity of the lines, the tremendous increase in the production of meat and meat products, which are good sources of protein for our people and for export. We need the change. So that is what we have done. But the linchpin in all of this is consumer confidence. Our food safety system must adequately protect consumers. It must assure consumers that their food is safe. If consumers lack confidence in the safety of meat and poultry products, they will not be good customers. That means less demand and lower prices and income for livestock and poultry producers, as well as for our packers and processors. On May 25, a huge cloud of uncertainty was cast over USDA's meat and poultry inspection system when the Federal district court for the Northern District of Texas held that USDA does not have the statutory authority to enforce its pathogen reduction standards for salmonella in ground beef. The pathogen reduction standards are a critical part of the new food safety system which was adopted by the USDA in 1996 in the hazard analysis critical control point and pathogen reduction rule. It is otherwise known by its acronym HACCP, something that many of us in the Senate and the House have worked on for many years to bring about. That system was designed to protect human health by reducing the levels of bacteria contamination in meat and poultry products. I might add that the HACCP rule was broadly supported by consumer groups, by packers, by processors, by the meat and poultry industry, as being a step in the right direction from the kind of inspection procedures that we had before. The HACCP and the pathogen reduction rule established a modern inspection system based on two fundamental principles. First, the meat and poultry industry has the primary responsibility and the flexibility to design plans for producing safe products and then to follow those food safety plans. So the industry has the primary responsibility. And they should have the flexibility to design plans for producing safe products and then to follow those plans. That is the first principle. The second principle is that the public health is best served by reducing the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products nationwide--a very commonsense principle. To accomplish this, USDA developed pathogen reduction standards using salmonella as the indicator bacteria. These standards set targets that plants have to meet for reducing microbial pathogen levels. If a plant repeatedly fails to meet salmonella targets, USDA may refuse to inspect the plant's products, thereby effectively shutting the plant down until the plant implements a corrective action plan to meet the pathogen reduction standard. What happened was the district court in Texas held that USDA does not have the statutory authority to enforce its food safety standards designed to reduce pathogen levels in ground beef. The court stated, in its June 13 final judgment, that the salmonella reduction standard ``is hereby declared to be outside the statutory authority of the United States Secretary of Agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture to the extent that it allows the Secretary and/or USDA to withdraw or suspend inspection services or withhold the mark of inspection on the basis of an alleged failure to comply with the Salmonella performance standard for ground beef. . . .'' That is the quote from the finding of the district court. Keep in mind, if USDA cannot withdraw or suspend inspection, it is powerless to enforce the pathogen reduction standards. Refusing inspection is USDA's only enforcement tool. Again, the Texas decision was based on an interpretation of USDA's statutory authority to enforce the salmonella reduction standard. I am aware there has been a lot of discussion about the legitimacy of the salmonella standard. Is it science based? Does it rationally relate to food safety? Those are legitimate questions to raise. But the court did not even get to those questions. It just ruled that the USDA did not have the statutory authority to enforce its standard designed to reduce pathogenic bacteria. I believe the American public would be shocked to be told that the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have the authority, under our meat and poultry inspection laws, to require reductions in microbial contamination of meat and poultry. If USDA lacks the authority to enforce pathogen reduction standards, then, surely, we stand at the edge of a food safety debacle, a chasm. I am going to repeat that. The American public would be shocked to find the USDA does not have the authority, under our existing meat and poultry inspection laws, to require reductions in microbial contamination of meat and poultry. Think about that. Frankly, I have my doubts about the reasoning of the court in the Texas case. But the court has held that the USDA lacks this authority to enforce the pathogen reduction standards. That decision has created an intolerable degree of uncertainty about USDA's authority to ensure the safety of meat and poultry products, not only in Texas but anywhere in the entire United States. Plainly and simply, all my pending amendment does is to clarify that the USDA has the legal statutory authority to require reductions in pathogenic bacteria in meat and poultry products. Let me explain why it is so critically important that we clarify this and that USDA has that authority. I have some charts to show that. This chart has some very sobering statistics. In the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, foodborne pathogens are responsible for 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths every year. That is an estimate by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The economic impact of foodborne illness for the United States is estimated to be $6.6 to $37.1 billion per year. Just to clarify, these statistics include all foods--not just meat and poultry but all foods. Meat and poultry are certainly a substantial portion of the cases; I don't want to mislead anyone. This covers lettuce, tomatoes, fruits, vegetables, and everything else. Again, these are not just illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths that result simply from the failure to reduce pathogens in the processing and packaging stream. This could come about from mishandling of food at the consumer level, at the purchasing level, storage, miscooking, and inapplicable storage of partially cooked food. I want to illustrate the dimensions of foodborne pathogens in our country. Again, I am not condemning the meat and poultry industry. I am not trying to frighten consumers. Yet there is no denying that we have much more foodborne illness than we should. Consumers are paying attention. Consumers are concerned about the safety of their food. Again, I come back to the matter of consumer confidence. What industry can build markets if it fails to build confidence in its customers? If you support the meat and poultry industries, as I do, then you also have to support a food safety and inspection system that effectively assures the safety and quality of meat and poultry products. The second chart shows some of the progress we have made since we established the new pathogen reduction standards which the USDA has been implementing. Salmonella levels on meat and poultry products have fallen. Salmonella rates in ground beef have dropped 43 percent for some of our small plants, 23 percent for large plants. In fact, in the entire United States, only three plants have failed to meet the standard. I think this is strong evidence that the standard works and that it is reasonable. Yet the court in Texas says USDA does not have the legal authority to do what it has been doing to reach these dropping rates in salmonella levels. It says USDA does not have the authority to continue to do that. The next chart indicates the success of the USDA new food safety system for meat and poultry. This chart shows the rate of foodborne illnesses has fallen from 51.2 per 100,000 people in 1996, when the HACCP rule was implemented, to 40.7 per 100,000 people in 1999. That is a 20.5-percent decrease in total foodborne illnesses in the last 4 to 5 years. That is a major success story in food safety. But now the Texas court's decision has rejected USDA's authority to reduce pathogens on meat and poultry products which led us to this tremendous reduction. The salmonella standard is not perfect, from what I am told by scientists and others. That is why I have carefully crafted my amendment so it does not codify or lock into place the existing salmonella standard. My amendment would do nothing to prevent changing, improving, or even challenging a pathogen reduction standard. I want to continue to work with producers, the meat and poultry industries, consumers, and the USDA to see that we have science-based, workable performance standards that protect the public health. Again, what my amendment does, and all it does, is to make certain that USDA has the legal, statutory authority to enforce pathogen reduction standards that are critically important to assuring food safety. I am willing to engage in any colloquies about this amendment. Keep in mind, this court decision was only 2 months ago. Quite frankly, if we don't act soon, I think there is going to be great concern among consumers, customers in the export markets, about our commitment to reducing pathogens, reducing bacteria in our meat, livestock, and poultry products. We are not trying to lock in a standard. As I said in my opening statement, times change, conditions change. We have to be able to do that. But the authority to do that, as it has been going back probably almost 70 years--80 years almost--the authority for meat and poultry inspection has been with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To be sure, during most of that time, they were not involved in the reduction of pathogens and bacteria. But with the new changes in how we do inspections, with HACCP, we decided, and the processors and the consumers decided, that we needed to do everything possible to reduce bacteria contamination on our meat and poultry products. As I said, we have done a great job in that. We have reduced it. We are on our way. Most of the plants in America have met these requirements. They have used HACCP. They have been responsible. Only three plants in the entire United States failed to meet the standard. I think if the court had gotten beyond the statutory problem and gotten to the essence, the substance of it, the court, on the weight of the evidence, would have had to decide that the reduction standard is reasonable. Obviously, if all the plants in the country are doing it and only three have not met it, a reasonable person--and I believe the court is reasonable--would say, obviously, it has to be a pretty decent standard. But the court didn't even get there. They just said, sorry, you don't have the authority, which really has opened up a chasm. That is why it is so critically important for us to address this issue this year. The only vehicle we have that I can see right now is to do it on the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is a good bill and which I hope will make its way through and be signed by the President. I think it is critically important to give them that authority. That is all my amendment does right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Jay Smith, during the pendency of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to James Dunn of my staff during the pendency of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the State of Georgia and the United States of America lost a great, decent leader yesterday. Paul Coverdell was one of the quiet heroes of this Senate Chamber. He was not showy; he was not proud; he was not here for the credit or the prestige or the power. He was a gentle man in every sense of the word and in every aspect of his being. He was here because he loved his State and loved his Nation. He was here because he wanted to improve education. It was a profound concern of his. He was here because he wanted to end drug abuse and the scourge of drugs among young people. He was here because he wanted to protect our national security and secure our children's future and open America's promise to all of those he served. He fought for all these things with a humble dignity and a quiet passion that touched each one of us. In a way, Paul was the Senate peacemaker. We get a lot of contentious issues around here. We are all human beings. Tempers flare. Voices rise. It seems as if you are never going to get together with people again across the aisles. Paul Coverdell could step in and work his way back and forth and calm things down. Recently, we had the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education bill up. I am the ranking member on that subcommittee. The chairman is Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. It seems that every year when that bill comes up the debate gets hotter. The decibel level goes up a little bit. We seemed to be locked in a week-long struggle on that bill, and I had a chance, once again, to watch Paul Coverdell at work in soothing the tensions on both sides, of reaching across to Democrats and his own Republicans to find that common ground and just calm things down. He was really good at that. I watched him work. I said once to Senator Specter: I am sure glad we have Paul Coverdell around here because he was able to keep things calm. He helped us reach the compromises, as we must do around here, and to find a common ground between people. I also served with Paul on the Agriculture Committee. We shared a common love of farmers and rural people. Again, in his own quiet way, I saw the determination and the grit of Paul Coverdell in fighting for his farmers in Georgia during many deliberations on the Ag Committee and especially in the passage of the last farm bill. A lot of people do not know this--but Paul and I talked about it often--he was born in Des Moines, IA, not more than 10 miles from where I was born and raised. It is an honor that I represent a State that produced someone as good and as decent as Paul Coverdell. He was one of the finest leaders this body has ever seen. Standing here and looking over at his desk and looking at the black cloth and the flowers on the desk cannot help but remind each of us of the transitory nature of human life. Just last week--it seems like yesterday--I was on the floor talking with Paul Coverdell about an issue, asking for some help and seeing if he could work some things out. He was as alive and as vibrant and as engaged and committed to the smooth functioning of this institution as anyone else. Four days later, he passed on. Looking at his desk, and thinking about seeing him just a few days ago, being alive and vibrant and full of health, and looking forward, not only makes us think about the transitory nature of human life but it also should serve to remind us we should make every day count--make every day count in emulating the kindness and the gentleness and the caring nature of a Paul Coverdell. One of my political heroes, Hubert Humphrey, once said: ``To be a leader means a willingness to risk--and a willingness to love. One must ask: Has the leader given you something from the heart?'' Paul Coverdell had the guts and the courage to take risks. He had a great will to love. And to that question by Hubert Humphrey, I can say yes about Paul Coverdell. He gave us all something from that wonderful heart of his. So I join with my friends and colleagues in extending to Nancy and to his family our profound sorrow. We share your sorrow. But we hope you take comfort, as we do, in knowing that the kind and gentle and caring life of Paul Coverdell is now rewarded by the kind and gentle and caring hand of Almighty God. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his very eloquent and decisive statement. I think my friend has really put his finger on it. I would add one other thing to what we attempted to do here with the future surpluses the Senator was mentioning, the various things we wanted to do to try to help average working people. I had offered an amendment a couple of weeks ago to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act so we could help the States help families with children with disabilities to send them to school to get them the best possible education. We were stymied by the Republicans. Most of them voted against it. Yet they find it within themselves to give, as the Senator pointed out, to the top 1 percent of this country 43 percent of the tax breaks. The surplus we have coming in the next 10 years is being used up by these tax breaks. I might ask the Senator if that is not so. It is my information, just this year, up until right now, this Senate, under Republican leadership, has passed something over $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. Am I in the ballpark, I ask the Senator?

Mr. HARKIN. I see my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. The other day, Senator Kennedy was pointing out that the Republicans have passed $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. Yet we have not purchased one book; we have not reduced the size of one class, we have not hired one new teacher, modernized one school, brought one prescription drug for the elderly. Yet they spend $1.3 trillion of the surplus that is there because of hard-working Americans the Senator from Illinois is talking about.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator knows that next week we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A recent court decision upheld the ADA, trying to get people with disabilities the right to live independently in their own communities. That is going to require us to make some changes in this country. It is going to require us to invest in making sure people with disabilities have the kind of support they need so they can get education and jobs and independent living and transportation. If we do that, they are going to be wage earners and taxpayers and not living in institutions. I say to the Senator from Illinois, as we celebrate the ADA next week, we ought to think about that, where all the money is now going, because the Republicans are giving it all to the top 1 percent and there will not be anything left to help make our country more fair and just, and to make sure we live up to our obligation to people with disabilities so they are fully integrated into our society.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.