Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I give the Indonesians credit. The article says that this new government commission ``. . . named six top generals--including Gen. Wiranto . . . and General Anwar for possible criminal prosecution'' and that the ``militia'' with their ``surrogates carried out an orchestrated campaign of mass killing, torture, forced deportation, rape and sexual slavery in East Timor.'' The East Timorese resistance leader and Nobel laureate, Jose Ramos-Horta, said in Singapore that Wiranto should be tried and not just removed from the cabinet. ``In this day and age, you cannot kill hundreds of people, destroy a whole country, and then just get fired.'' These are crimes against humanity. I wholeheartedly commend the present Government of Indonesia and its human rights commission for their bravery in doing this investigation and coming up with this finding. I think it moves the democratic forces far ahead in Indonesia because they were able to come out with this finding. I am very supportive of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. We have to make some statements about East Timor. We have to be in the lead on this, and the fact that the human rights commission of the present Government in Indonesia made these findings ought to give us comfort that we are not undermining the Government of Indonesia in helping the East Timorese. I was not privileged to go back with Senator Reed when he went there in December. I talked to him. Senator Reed said: You would not believe the places we were, that we saw with our own eyes. They were leveled. Buildings were burnt. Some of the church houses were burned down and people just disappeared, all driven across the border. We were up in this one town on the border. He said it was like a ghost town. All of these people were forcefully deported into West Timor, and even yet today they are not letting these people come home. I think the focus of world opinion and public opinion and attention has to be again on East Timor. What the Indonesian military did there is unconscionable. I don't blame the Indonesian people. I talked to too many Indonesians who were opposed to what their military was doing in East Timor, who thought it was a right of the East Timorese, because of their history and their past, to have self-determination. I in no way cast any blame upon the Indonesian people themselves. But I do single out General Wiranto, General Anwar, and the people at the human rights commission who were in charge of aiding, abetting, and fostering the militia that did these terrible things to East Timor--as Senator Reed said--vindictively burning down things, destroying telephone lines, destroying bridges, just crazy things such as that, just to leave the country in total waste. Again, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Rhode Island for their strong support of the brave people of East Timor. I hope we in the Senate, if not today, at some point shortly can express our support on this sense-of-the-Senate resolution so the brave people of East Timor and the democratic forces in Indonesia know we will support this and we will do everything we can to help them rebuild this country again as a signal to the rest of the world that we will support peaceful self-determination and the right of people to have their own democratic governments. This is as good a place as any to start. Again, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his strong, continued leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Specter, in the introduction of the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2000.'' I want to commend Senator Specter for having the leadership and foresight to introduce legislation which will broaden federally-funded scientists to pursue stem cell research, under certain, limited conditions. From enabling the development of cell and tissue transplantation, to improving and accelerating pharmaceutical research and development, to increasing our understanding of human development and cancer biology, the potential benefits of stem cell research are truly awe-inspiring. Stem cells hold hope for countless patients through potentially lifesaving therapies for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. Also exciting is the possibility that researchers may be able to alter stem cells genetically so they would avoid attack by the patient's immune system. But all of these potential benefits could be delayed or even denied to patients without a healthy partnership between the private sector and the federal government. While market interest in stem cell technology is strong, and private companies will continue to fund this research, the government has an important role to play in supporting the basic and applied science that underpins these technologies. The problem is that early, basic science is always going to be underfunded by the private sector because this type of research does not get products onto the market quickly enough. The only way to ensure that this research is conducted is to allow the NIH to support it. The Department of Health and Human Services ruled last year that under the current ban on human embryo research, federally-funded scientists can conduct stem cell research if they use cell lines derived from private sources. This is a positive step forward, but it continues to handicap our researchers in the pursuit of cures and therapies that will help our citizens, Last fall, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) released its final report, ``Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research.'' The Commission concluded that stem cell research should be allowed to go forward with federal support, as long as researchers were limited to only two sources of stem cells: fetal tissue and embryos resulting from infertility treatments. And they recommended that federal support be contingent on an open system of oversight and review. NBAC also arrived at the important conclusion that it is ethically acceptable for the federal government to finance research that both derives cell lines from embryos and that uses those cell lines. Their report states, ``Relying on cell lines that might be derived exclusively by a subset of privately funded researchers who are interested in this area could severely limit scientific and clinical progress.'' The Commission goes on to say that ``scientists who conduct basic research and are interested in fundamental cellular processes are likely to make elemental discoveries about the nature of ES [embryonic stem] cells as they derive them in the laboratory.'' NBAC's report presents reasonable guidelines for federal policy. Our bill bans human embryo research, but allows federally-funded scientists to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos if those embryos are obtained from IVF clinics, if the donor has provided informed consent and the embryo was no longer needed for fertility treatments. The American Society of Cell Biology estimates that 100,000 human embryos are currently frozen in IVF clinics, in excess of their clinical need. In addition, our language requires HHS and NIH to develop procedural and ethical guidelines to make sure that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical, sound manner. As it stands today, stem cell research in the private sector is not subject to federal monitoring or ethical requirements. Stem cell research holds such hope, such potential for millions of Americans who are sick and in pain, it is morally wrong for us to prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the progress that has been made. As long as this research is conducted in an ethically validated manner, it should be allowed to go forward, and it should receive federal support. That is why Senator Specter and I have joined together on legislation that will allow our nation's top scientists to pursue critical cures and therapies for the diseases and chronic conditions which strike too many Americans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my Senate colleagues in recognizing January as National Biotechnology Month. At the dawn of this new century, it is fitting for us to recognize the promise and potential of biotechnology. With the mapping of the human genome, we are on the brink of critical advances in health care and medical discovery. These advances can become new cures and new treatments, new industrial products, and improved agricultural products. Biotechnology is changing medical practice from the way diseases are diagnosed to the way they are treated. By helping us to understand life at the molecular level, biotechnology can help eliminate the guesswork of disease management and treatment. Biotechnology researchers have already made dramatic strides in confronting some of our most devastating and tragic diseases, from cancer to multiple sclerosis to Alzheimers. Recent breakthroughs in human embryonic stem cell research have given us cause to predict cures for diseases such as Parkinsons, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injury. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations subcommittee, I have been a long-time advocate for health research. Last year, Arlen Specter and I took the lead in providing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a $2.3 billion increase, the largest in NIH history, bringing the agency's overall budget to $17.9 billion. This year, we plan to introduce a resolution calling for a $2.7 billion increase--keeping our commitment to double NIH funding over five years. NIH provides funding for the basic science that underpins the important research and development done by the biotechnology industry. This strong public-private partnership has made our country the world leader in the area of biotechnology innovation. There are approximately 1300 biotech companies in the United States, employing more than 150,000 people. In my own state of Iowa, we have approximately 180 companies, with more than 10,000 employees. In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration approved 22 biotechnology drugs, vaccines and new indications for existing medicines. We currently have more than 90 biotech drugs and vaccines on the U.S. market. And I know this is only the beginning. In addition to its medical applications, biotechnology offers many exciting possibilities in the field of agriculture as well. Through biotechnology scientists are already developing new varieties and strains of plants and animals that will help to solve myriad problems and challenges relating to agriculture. The results of advances in agricultural biotechnology, impressive as they already are, represent merely the infancy of this promising scientific field. The fact that over 800 million of our fellow citizens on this planet suffer from hunger or undernourishment points to the tremendous challenge we face to produce enough food for an ever growing population. As it has in the past, biotechnology will contribute tremendously to meeting that challenge, through increased yields and production, improved productive efficiency and enhanced suitability for difficult environments. Developing new plant varieties that are more tolerant of drought or soil salinity would help to increase food production in areas of the world where people are now going hungry. Biotechnology also promises to help solve environmental challenges in agriculture. For example, plants that are inherently resistant to diseases or insects reduce the amount of pesticides that would otherwise be applied and enter the environment. Biotechnology can also help to reduce the amount of tillage that is needed, thereby reducing energy consumption and soil erosion. Thus far biotechnology has been applied for the most part at the level of the farm, and has not been perceived by consumers as directly benefitting them to a significant degree. That is about to change. We are already seeing the development of new strains of plants that have specific traits to improve the nutritional quality of foods derived from them. Work at Iowa State University, for example, has developed soybeans that produce a soybean oil with lower saturated fat than conventional soybeans. We are not far from having rice that contains Vitamin A, which would alleviate a great deal of human suffering in developing countries. Perhaps the most fascinating area of biotechnology involves the potential for developing new crops and livestock designed to produce a variety of raw materials and substances, likely to be of high value, for use in very specific applications, including medicine. We can produce from plants everything we now rely on petroleum to produce: energy and industrial raw materials for a wide range of products. I believe there will be real economic opportunities for farmers in producing these higher value crops and animals, and for rural communities in processing them. To be sure, if agricultural biotechnology is to meet its potential, we must ensure that all questions about its safety for consumers and for the environment are fully answered. I believe that those questions can and will be answered satisfactorily, using the best sound science available.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support H.R. 3373, providing for the minting of a Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative dollar coin. This bipartisan legislation would authorize the U.S. Mint to issue a coin jointly with the Icelandic National Bank in commemoration of Leif Ericson and his voyage and exploration of North America. The part of the measure concerning Leif Ericson is identical to S. 1710 that Senator Grams and I introduced which has the support of 74 Senators. The House bill was introduced by Congressman Jim Leach of my home state of Iowa who has worked hard toward the passage of this measure. I want to commend him for his good work. The famous Viking explorer is regarded as the first European to set foot on North American soil in the year 1000 AD. In a time of sea voyages and land exploration, perhaps the most recognized Viking in history is Leif Ericson. Ericson's determination, nobility and spirit of exploration are demonstrated in his Voyage of Discovery. Next year marks the 1000th anniversary of Leif Ericson's Voyage of Discovery and this coin will commemorate this landmark event in North American history. Leif Ericson, son of Eric the Red, was born in Iceland in the mid 900's AD. There he learned about reading and writing runes, the Celtic and Russian tongue and the ways of trade. Ericson was also taught the old sagas, plant studies and the use of weapons. As a young boy, Ericson and his friends would spend time watching ships coming in and out of the harbor and dream about someday going on voyage of their own. Ericson grew to be a large and imposing man, one known for his far judgment and honesty. Having his father's adventurous hand, Ericson had a strong urge to travel and explore. Ericson was able to do some traveling between Iceland and Greenland, but his major Voyage of Discovery did not occur until 1000 AD, when explorer Bjarni Herjolfsson relayed exciting news of a new land that he had seen when he lost his course in the fog. Ericson bought Herjolfsson's ship, gathered a crew of 35, and sailed westward. Unlike today, Ericson's voyages on the sea were without many modern conveniences. He did not travel by a motor-powered ship, nor have any of today's advanced technological navigational tools. Instead, Ericson and his small crew used the wind and tides as their primary source of motive power, relying on the weather as the engine for his vessel. His Viking ship did not do too well against hard winds with their single sails, but fortunately, fair weather allowed Ericson to navigate 600 miles west up the western coast. Soon he was following the outlines of the new lands he had heard of. The first island Ericson landed on was among glaciers and seemed to be one huge slab of rock. Because of this he named it Helluland (Slab Land or Flat Rock Land), which is now believed to be Baffin Island. Ericson then sailed south and found another land that was flat with white beaches and some trees. He named this land Markland (Woodland) which today is believed to be Labrador on the eastern coast of Canada. Finally, Ericson sailed southeast for two days and came to an island with a mainland. On this land the Viking explorer and his crew came upon an abundance of grapes as well as vegetation. they had never seen before. They also were astounded by the size of fish and other animal life they saw while exploring this land. Ericson and his crew settled in for the winter, but the winter here was very peculiar. No frost came to the grasses. They also noticed that the days and nights were of more equal length here. When spring came and the men were ready to go, Ericson gave this land the name Vinland, which either means Wineland or Pastureland. Vinland is believed to be today's L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland and archaeological findings of this winter camp seem to confirm this belief. Ericson's Voyage of Discovery is a significant event in North American history and symbolizes a long relationship between the U.S. and Iceland. The Government of Iceland is an important North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally and this action would reiterate our strong relationship with and support for their nation. Iceland votes with the United States on virtually all United Nations and NATO issues and has formulated foreign policies parallel to ours. They also are cutting costs at our military base in Keflavi. Iceland has refrained from whaling, encouraged more U.S. trade and investment and initiated a partnership with the state of Alaska. The Government of Iceland has already approved a silver 1000 Kroner Icelandic coin to be produced by the U.S. Mint that will be packaged and issued simultaneously with the U.S. Leif Ericson Commemorative Coin. We believe jointly issuing these coins will help further relations between our nations. The United States Congress strengthened U.S.-Icelandic relations in 1930 by presenting a statue of Leif Ericson as a gift to Iceland memorializing Ericson's Voyage of Discovery. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson made October 9 ``Leif Ericson Day'' in commemoration of the famous Viking explorer. The Leif Ericson Commemorative Coin in the year 2000 would commemorate the millennial anniversary of Ericson's voyage and would display our commitment to continuing this relationship for the coming millennium. H.R. 3373 allows a simultaneous issuance of a commemorative U.S. silver dollar coin and a silver 1000 Kroner Icelandic coin. Both coins are to be produced in limited mintages, with U.S. Mint issuing a boxed set. Mint and surcharge proceeds from the coins will fund scholarships and student exchange programs between Iceland and United States. The U.S. Mint has read and approved the identical House version as meeting all the guidelines contained in the 1995 Congressional House Banking Committee Commemorative Coin Reforms Act, which protects the taxpayer from any costs. We feel such a coin is an important step in recognizing the important role Iceland has played in North American history. H.R. 3373 also provides for a Lewis and Clark Expedition Commemorative Coin which I strongly support and a Capitol Visitor Center Commemorative Coin.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has given its approval to Senate Resolution 134. With passage of this resolution, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Thurmond and Hollings, the Senate has gone on record to right a wrong perpetrated against one of the greatest American baseball players of all time--Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson. And I want to commend Senators Thurmond and Hollings for their good work on this. ``Shoeless Joe'' has been an inspiration to baseball players and fans for decades. Even the legendary Babe Ruth was said to have copied Jackson's swing. I was touched by Jacksons' story through the movie ``Field of Dreams,'' which recounted his story. The movie was filmed in Dyersville, Iowa. Thousands of Iowans, young and old alike, have come to embrace ``Shoeless Joe.'' In fact, there is an annual Shoeless Joe Jackson celebration and celebrity baseball game in Dyersville. This year it was attended by a cast of baseball greats, including Bob Feller. Jackson's career statistics and accomplishments throughout his thirteen years in professional baseball clearly earn him a place as one of baseball's all-time greats. His career batting average of .356 is the third highest of all time. In addition, Jackson was one of only seven Major League Baseball players to top the coveted mark of a .400 batting average for a season. Despite all this, in 1920 ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson was banned from the game of baseball, the gamed he loved. He was banned from Major League baseball for allegedly taking part in a conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series, in what has become known as the ``Black Sox'' scandal. While ``Shoeless Joe'' did admit that he received $5,000 from his roommate, Lefty Williams, to participate in the fix, evidence suggests that Jackson did everything in his power to stop the fix from going through. He twice tried to give the money back. He offered to sit out the World Series in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. And, he tried to inform White Sox owner Charles Comiskey of the fix. All of these efforts fell on deaf ears. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of Jackson's withdrawal from the conspiracy was his performance on the field during the series. During the 1919 World Series--which he was accused of conspiring to fix-- ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's batting average was .375, the highest of any player from either team. He had twelve hits, a World Series record. He led his team in runs scored and runs batted in. And, he hit the only home run of the series. On defense, Jackson committed no errors and had no questionable plays in thirty chances. When criminal charges were brought against Jackson in trial, the jury found him ``not guilty.'' White Sox owner Charles Comiskey and several sportswriters testified that they say no indication that Jackson did anything to indicate he was trying to throw the series. But, when the issue came before the newly-formed Major League Baseball Commissioner's office, Commissioner Judge Kenesaw ``Mountain'' Landis found Jackson guilty of taking part in the fix, and he was banned for life from playing baseball. The Commissioner's office never conducted an investigation and never held a hearing, thus denying ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson due process. Major League Baseball now has the opportunity to correct a great injustice. I have written to Commissioner Bud Selig urging him to take a new look at this case. I was very pleased when the Commissioner responded to my inquiry by saying he is giving the case a fair and objective review. Restoring ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's eligibility for the Hall of Fame would benefit Major League Baseball, baseball fans, and all Americans who appreciate a sense of fair play. The resolution we passed today states that Major League Baseball should honor Jackson's accomplishments appropriately. I believe Jackson should be inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. If that is to happen, Jackson must first be cleared for consideration by the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, which will stand as the jury which decides whether Jackson's accomplishments during his playing career are worthy of recognition in the Hall of Fame. Mr. President, we are involved in many important issues. Clearly, this matter will not and should not take up the same amount of time this body devotes to critical issues like health care, education, or national defense. But, restoring the good name and reputation of a single American is important. This resolution has given us the opportunity to right an old wrong. It has given us the opportunity to honor one of the all-time great players of America's pastime, ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson. I thank my colleagues for supporting this resolution. amendment no. 2800 (Purpose: To amend certain findings of the Resolution)

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a great day for the critically important search for medical breakthroughs. I am very pleased to say that the omnibus appropriations act contains a record $2.3 billion increase in support for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. We are now well on our way towards our goal of doubling our nation's investment in the search for medical breakthroughs. This increase will directly benefit the health of the American people. It will speed up the day when we have a cure for cancer and other deadly diseases. On top of that, the Senate has passed S. 1268, the Twenty-First Century Research Laboratories Act of 1999. This bill cosponsored by Senators Frist, Kennedy, Chafee, Reed of Rhode Island, Mack, Mikulski, Murray, Cleland, Helms, Warner, Sarbanes, Schumer, Cochran, Durbin, Moynihan, Boxer, Roberts, Reid of Nevada, Specter, Feinstein, Collins, Inouye and Hagel. I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation, and for their support in getting it passed. This bill addresses a critical shortfall in our nation's medical research enterprise. I was pleased to work with Senator Specter this year to achieve a $2.3 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. The Conference Agreement of the Fiscal Year 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, provides $17.9 billion for the NIH. This puts us well on track to double funding for the NIH over the next five years, a target that was agreed to by the Senate, 98-0, in 1997. However, as Congress embarks on this important investment in improved health, we must strengthen the totality of the biomedical research enterprise. While it is critical to focus on high quality, cutting edge basic and clinical research, we must also consider the quality of the laboratories and buildings where that research is being conducted. In fact, Mr. President, the infrastructure of research institutions, including the need for new physical facilities, is central to our nation's leadership in medical research. Despite the significant scientific advances produced by Federally-funded research, most of that research is currently being done in medical facilities built in the 1950's and 1960's, a time when the Federal government obligated from $30 million to $100 million a year for facility and equipment modernization. Since then, however, annual appropriations for modernization of our biomedical research infrastructure have dramatically declined, ranging from zero to $20 million annually over the past decade. I am pleased to report that this year we were able to increase that amount to $75 million in our appropriations bill. While this is an important improvement, much more is needed. As a result, many of our research facilities and laboratories are outdated and inadequate to meet the challenge of the next millennium. In order to realize major medical breakthroughs in Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer and other major illnesses, our nation's top researchers must have top quality, state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment. Unfortunately, the status of our research infrastructure is woefully inadequate. A recent study by the National Science Foundation finds that academic institutions have deferred, due to lack of funds nearly $11.4 billion in repair, renovation, and construction projects. Almost one quarter of all research space requires either major renovation or replacement and 70% of medical schools report having inadequate space in which to perform biomedical research. A separate study by the National Science Foundation documents the laboratory equipment needs for researchers and found that 67 percent of research institutions reported an increased need for laboratory instruments. At the same time, the report found that spending for such instruments at colleges and universities actually declined in the early 1990s. Several other prominent organizations have documented the need for increased funding for research infrastructure. A March 1998 report by the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that ``The government should reestablish and fund a National Institutes of Health construction authority. . . .'' A June 1998 report by the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology stated that ``Laboratories must be built and equipped for the science of the 21st century . . . Infrastructure investments should include renovation of existing space as well as new construction, where appropriate.'' As we work to double funding for medical research over the next few years, the already serious shortfall in the modernization of our nation's aging research facilities and labs will continue to worsen unless we take specific action. Future increases in NIH must be matched with increased funding for repair, renovation and construction of research facilities, as well as the purchase of modern laboratory equipment. Mr. President, the bill that passed the Senate today expands federal funding for facilities construction and state-of-the-art laboratory equipment through the NIH by increasing the authorization for this account within the National Center for Research Resources to $250 million in FY 2000 and $500 million in FY 2001. In addition, the bill authorizes a ``Shared Instrumentation Grant Program'' at NIH, to be administered by the Center. The program will provide grants for the purchase of shared-use, state-of-the-art laboratory equipment costing over $100,000. All grants awarded under these two programs will be peer-reviewed, as is the practice with all NIH grants and projects. We are entering a time of great promise in the field of biomedical research. We are on the verge of major breakthroughs which could end the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's and the scores of illnesses and conditions which take the lives and health of millions of Americans, But to realize these breakthroughs, we must devote the necessary resources to our nation's research enterprise. I want to thank the Association of American Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleagues and the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology for their support for this legislation. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important health care legislation, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives next year to ensure this legislation is signed into law. Thank you.

Mr. HARKIN. Therefore, we agree that HCFA's proposed rule has been extensively researched and that HCFA should move forward expeditiously.

Mr. HARKIN. In 1994, the Health Care Financing Administration issued a draft regulation deferring to State law on the issue of physician supervision of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA's). This action was followed -in 1997 by a proposed HCFA rule deferring to State law on this issue. HCFA's rule has been subject to great scrutiny and numerous studies. Nevertheless, HCFA has to date failed to issue its final rule on the matter, and defer this issue to State law. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee agree with this assessment?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member on the committee. I rise in strong support of the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I really want to commend my two colleagues, Senator Jeffords of Vermont and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, for their excellent work in getting this very important piece of legislation through. I want to also thank the members of the Finance Committee--in particular, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan--for their hard work on this legislation. For people with disabilities all over this country, this is truly an incredible day. Congress is continuing to fulfill the promise we made to people with disabilities 9 years ago when we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990. When we passed the ADA, they told Americans with disabilities that the door to equal opportunity was finally open. And the ADA has opened doors of opportunity--plenty of them. Americans with disabilities now expect to be treated as full citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. But our work is not finished. Far too many people with disabilities who want to work are unemployed. One of the main reasons they are unemployed is, under the current system, people have to choose between a job and health care. I could not put it any better than a constituent of mine, a young woman by the name of Phoebe Ball. Phoebe just graduated from the University of Iowa. She was shocked when they found that if she took an entry-level job paying $18,000 a year, she would suffer a huge loss--her health insurance. So Phoebe wrote an article for the newspaper. I will read part of it: I want off SSI desperately . . . I want to work. I want to know that I have earned the money I have . . . My parents and my society made a promise to me. They promised me that I can live with this disability, and I can . . . What is limiting me right now is not this wheelchair, and it's not this limb that's missing. It's a system that says if I can work at all, then I'm undeserving of any assistance, I'm undeserving of the basic medical care that I need to stay alive. . . . What is needed is a government that understands its responsibility to its citizens . . . then we'll see what we are capable of, then we'll be working and proving the worth of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I could not say it any better than Phoebe just did. The Work Incentives Improvement Act is a comprehensive bill that will be the answer to Phoebe Ball's dilemma. If only 1 percent--or 75,000--of the 7.5 million people with disabilities, such as Phoebe, who are now on benefits were to become employed, Federal savings would total $3.5 billion over the work life of these beneficiaries. That not only makes economic sense, it contributes to preserving the Social Security trust fund. The disability community across this country and Members from both sides of the aisle have wholeheartedly endorsed this bill. Rarely do we see such broad bipartisan support. But that is because on this particular issue it is easy to agree--people with disabilities should continue to move toward greater and greater independence. In that spirit, Senator Specter and I introduced the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act earlier this week. Its shorthand name is MCASSA. This bill will build on what we are doing today with the Work Incentives Improvement Act. Ten years after the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, next year, we are still facing the situation where our current long-term care program favors putting people into institutions. A person has a right to the most expensive form of care--a nursing home bed--because nursing home care is an entitlement. But if that same person with a disability wants to live in the community, he or she is going to have to face a lack of available services because community services are optional under Medicaid. Nursing home is a mandatory entitlement, but if you want to live in the community, that is optional. Well, the purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give people with disabilities a real choice. Our bill would allow any person entitled to medical assistance who would go to a nursing facility to use the money for community attendant services and support. In shorthand, what our bill says is: Let the Federal money follow the person and not the program. If that person wants to use that money for community-based services and attendant services, that person with a disability ought to be able to use the money that way. If they want to use the money for a nursing home, leave it up to the individual; we should not be dictating where they ought to live and how they ought to live. As is the work incentives bill, MCASSA is rooted in the promise of ADA--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for all. I thank the Chair. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today as we are debating how to protect Social Security and Medicare while making necessary investments in our nation's future, I am introducing legislation designed to provide some options for reducing spending. In an effort to promote greater fiscal responsibility within the federal government, ``The Fiscal Responsibility Act'' would eliminate special interest tax loopholes, reduce corporate welfare, eliminate unnecessary government programs, reduce wasteful spending, enhance government efficiency and require greater accountability. The reforms contained in this bill would result in savings of up to $20 billion this year and up to $140 billion over the next five years. These savings could be used to pay down the federal debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare, provide middle-class tax relief, and/or pay for needed investment in education, health care and other priorities. While I recognize that everyone won't agree on each of the provisions of this measure, I believe it is important for us to put forward options to be considered. I hope that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to produce a set of reforms such as these to lay a path of fiscal responsibility as we move into the next century. The following is a summary of the bill's major provisions: Elimination of Unnecessary Government Programs. A number of outdated or unnecessary programs would be eliminated, including Radio Marti, TV Marti and certain nuclear energy research initiatives. These changes would save over $150 million this year. Reduction of Wasteful Spending and Government Efficiency Improvements. $13 billion a year is lost to Medicare waste and abuse. This would be substantially reduced through a series of comprehensive reforms. In addition, taxpayer support for the cost of certain nuclear energy lobbying activities would be eliminated. A number of common sense steps would be implemented to improve the efficiency of government activities. Spending by government agencies on travel, printing, supplies and other items would be frozen at 1998 levels. This change would save $2.8 billion this year and about $12 billion over 5 years. Pentagon spending would be tied to the rate of inflation. This would force the Pentagon to reduce duplication and other inefficiencies identified by government auditors and outside experts. This change would save taxpayers $9.2 billion this year and approximately $69 billion over the next 5 years. Enhancing the government's ability to collect student loan defaults would save taxpayers $892 million this year and $1 billion over five years. Eliminating Special Interest Tax Loopholes and Give-Aways. Tobacco use causes 400,000 deaths a year and costs taxpayers billions in preventable health care costs. And, yet, taxpayers are forced to cough up about $2 billion a year to subsidize the advertising and marketing of this deadly product. The tax deductibility of tobacco promotion would be ended and these funds would be saved. A loophole that allows estates valued above $10 million to elude taxation would be closed. The federal government allows mining companies to extract minerals from federally-owned lands at an actual cost of pennies on the dollar. This special interest giveaway would be ended, saving taxpayers $750 million over the next five years. American citizens temporarily working in foreign countries can earn up to $70,000 without paying any U.S. taxes. This unfair provision would be eliminated, bringing in an estimated $15.7 billion over the next 5 years. A foreign tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape paying their fair share for royalties would be limited. This common sense change would generate $3.1 billion over 5 years to reduce the debt our kids and grandkids will inherit. Increased Accountability. Tobacco companies hook 3,000 children a day on their deadly products. One in three of these kids will be sentenced to an early death. Tobacco companies should be held accountable. Accordingly, a goal of reducing teen smoking by at least 15 percent each year would be set. If tobacco companies fail to meet this goal, they would have to pay a penalty. Such a system would generate approximately $6 billion this year and $20 billion over the next 5 years. It would also significantly reduce the number of young children who become addicted to tobacco. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review the provisions in this bill and look forward to moving forward next year on a fiscally responsible budget plan.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle today for the introduction of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill will allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual patients and their properly licensed health care provider to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mr. President, we have made several important changes to the legislation from last Congress. We have improved the informed consent protections for patients by modeling them after the NIH's human subject protection regulations. The patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of: the nature, content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits AND risks of the treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the results of past applications of the treatment by the health care provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; and any financial interest the provider has in the product. Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) any adverse effects, and must immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger. Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH, which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an annual report. In addition, the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of therapy, and FDA has the authority to determine that the labeling of the treatment is not false or misleading. Mr. President, this legislation preserves the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies. It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be considered an ``alternative medical practice'' and widely rejected by the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical profession came around on that one. In addition, the Office of Technology Assessment reported in a 1978 study that only about 25 percent of the practices of mainstream medicine were based on scientific evidence. And there is little evidence that has changed in the past two decades. Today's consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President, Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies. According to a recent survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly one-half of Americans use some kind of complementary and alternative medicine. These practices, which range from acupuncture, to chiropractic care, to naturopathic, herbal and homeopathic remedies, are not simply complementary and alternative, but integral to how millions of Americans manage their health and treat their illnesses. This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and cure disease. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle today for the introduction of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill will allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual patients and their properly licensed health care provider to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mr. President, we have made several important changes to the legislation from last Congress. We have improved the informed consent protections for patients by modeling them after the NIH's human subject protection regulations. The patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of: the nature, content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits AND risks of the treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the results of past applications of the treatment by the health care provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; and any financial interest the provider has in the product. Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) any adverse effects, and must immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger. Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH, which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an annual report. In addition, the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of therapy, and FDA has the authority to determine that the labeling of the treatment is not false or misleading. Mr. President, this legislation preserves the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies. It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be considered an ``alternative medical practice'' and widely rejected by the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical profession came around on that one. In addition, the Office of Technology Assessment reported in a 1978 study that only about 25 percent of the practices of mainstream medicine were based on scientific evidence. And there is little evidence that has changed in the past two decades. Today's consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President, Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies. According to a recent survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly one-half of Americans use some kind of complementary and alternative medicine. These practices, which range from acupuncture, to chiropractic care, to naturopathic, herbal and homeopathic remedies, are not simply complementary and alternative, but integral to how millions of Americans manage their health and treat their illnesses. This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and cure disease. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today as we are debating how to protect Social Security and Medicare while making necessary investments in our nation's future, I am introducing legislation designed to provide some options for reducing spending. In an effort to promote greater fiscal responsibility within the federal government, ``The Fiscal Responsibility Act'' would eliminate special interest tax loopholes, reduce corporate welfare, eliminate unnecessary government programs, reduce wasteful spending, enhance government efficiency and require greater accountability. The reforms contained in this bill would result in savings of up to $20 billion this year and up to $140 billion over the next five years. These savings could be used to pay down the federal debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare, provide middle-class tax relief, and/or pay for needed investment in education, health care and other priorities. While I recognize that everyone won't agree on each of the provisions of this measure, I believe it is important for us to put forward options to be considered. I hope that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to produce a set of reforms such as these to lay a path of fiscal responsibility as we move into the next century. The following is a summary of the bill's major provisions: Elimination of Unnecessary Government Programs. A number of outdated or unnecessary programs would be eliminated, including Radio Marti, TV Marti and certain nuclear energy research initiatives. These changes would save over $150 million this year. Reduction of Wasteful Spending and Government Efficiency Improvements. $13 billion a year is lost to Medicare waste and abuse. This would be substantially reduced through a series of comprehensive reforms. In addition, taxpayer support for the cost of certain nuclear energy lobbying activities would be eliminated. A number of common sense steps would be implemented to improve the efficiency of government activities. Spending by government agencies on travel, printing, supplies and other items would be frozen at 1998 levels. This change would save $2.8 billion this year and about $12 billion over 5 years. Pentagon spending would be tied to the rate of inflation. This would force the Pentagon to reduce duplication and other inefficiencies identified by government auditors and outside experts. This change would save taxpayers $9.2 billion this year and approximately $69 billion over the next 5 years. Enhancing the government's ability to collect student loan defaults would save taxpayers $892 million this year and $1 billion over five years. Eliminating Special Interest Tax Loopholes and Give-Aways. Tobacco use causes 400,000 deaths a year and costs taxpayers billions in preventable health care costs. And, yet, taxpayers are forced to cough up about $2 billion a year to subsidize the advertising and marketing of this deadly product. The tax deductibility of tobacco promotion would be ended and these funds would be saved. A loophole that allows estates valued above $10 million to elude taxation would be closed. The federal government allows mining companies to extract minerals from federally-owned lands at an actual cost of pennies on the dollar. This special interest giveaway would be ended, saving taxpayers $750 million over the next five years. American citizens temporarily working in foreign countries can earn up to $70,000 without paying any U.S. taxes. This unfair provision would be eliminated, bringing in an estimated $15.7 billion over the next 5 years. A foreign tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape paying their fair share for royalties would be limited. This common sense change would generate $3.1 billion over 5 years to reduce the debt our kids and grandkids will inherit. Increased Accountability. Tobacco companies hook 3,000 children a day on their deadly products. One in three of these kids will be sentenced to an early death. Tobacco companies should be held accountable. Accordingly, a goal of reducing teen smoking by at least 15 percent each year would be set. If tobacco companies fail to meet this goal, they would have to pay a penalty. Such a system would generate approximately $6 billion this year and $20 billion over the next 5 years. It would also significantly reduce the number of young children who become addicted to tobacco. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review the provisions in this bill and look forward to moving forward next year on a fiscally responsible budget plan.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Arlen Specter, I am introducing the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act. Our bill allows people to have a real choice about where they receive certain types of Medicaid long term services and supports. It also provides grants to the States to assist them as they redirect Medicaid resources into community-based services and supports. We all know that given a real choice, most Americans who need long term services and supports would rather remain in their own homes and communities than go to a nursing home. Older people want to stay in their homes; parents want to keep their children with disabilities close by; and adults with disabilities want to live in the community. And yet, even though many people prefer home and community services and supports, our current long term care program favors institutional programs. Under our current Medicaid system, a person has a right to the most expensive form of care, a nursing home bed, because nursing home care is an entitlement. But if that same person wants to live in the community, he or she is likely to encounter a lack of available services, because community services are optional under Medicaid. The deck is stacked against community living, and the purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give people a real choice. Our bill would allow any person entitled to medical assistance in a nursing facility or an intermediate care facility to use the money for community attendant services and supports. Those services and supports include help with eating, bathing, brooming, toileting, transferring in and out of a wheelchair, meal planning and preparation, shopping, household chores, using the telephone, participating in the community, and health-related functions like taking pills, bowel and bladder care, and tube feeding. In short, personal assistance services and supports help people do tasks that they would do them selves, if they did not have a disability. Personal assistance services and supports are the lowest-cost and most consumer friendly services in the long-term care spectrum. They can be provided by a variety of people, including friends and neighbors of the recipient. In many instances, with supervision, the consumer can direct his or her own care and manage his or her own attendants. This cuts down on expensive administrative overhead and the current practice of relying on medical personnel such as nurses to coordinate a person's care. States can save money and redirect medically-oriented care to those who need it most. Not only is home and community-based care what people want, it can also be far less expensive. There is a wide variation in the cost of supporting people with disabilities in the community because individuals have different levels of need. But, for the average person, the annual cost of home and community based services is less than one- half the average cost of institutional care. In 1997, Medicaid spent $56 billion on long term care. Out of that $56 billion, $42.5 billion was spent on nursing home and institutional care. This paid for a little over 1 million people. In comparison, only $13.5 billion was spent on home and community-based care--but this money paid for almost 2 million people. Community services make sound, economic sense. In fact, the States are out ahead of us here in Washington on this issue. Thirty States are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid programs. Almost every State offers at least one home and community based Medicaid waiver program. Indeed, this is one of Senator Chafee's most important legacies. He was ahead of his time. The States have realized that community based care is both popular and cost effective, and personal assistance services and supports are a key component of a successful program. And yet there are several reasons why we have to do more. Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus that Americans with disabilities should have the equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. Instead, our current Federal Medicaid policy favors exclusion over integration, and dependence over self-determination. This legislation will bring Medicaid policy in line with our broader agreement that Americans with disabilities should have the chance to move toward independence. This bill allows people to receive certain types of services in the community so that they don't have to sacrifice their full participation in society simply because they require a catheter, assistance with medication, or some other basic service. Take the example of a friend of mine in Iowa. Dan Piper works at a hardware store. He has his own apartment and just bought a VCR. He also has Down's syndrome and diabetes. For years Dan has received services through a community waiver program. But, he recently learned that he might not be able to receive some basic services under the waiver. The result of this decision? He may have to sacrifice his independence for services. Today, Dan works and contributes to the economy as both a wage earner and a consumer. But, tomorrow, he may be forced into a nursing home, far from his roommate, his job, and his family. In addition, our country is facing a long-term care crisis of epic proportions in the not-too distant future. We all talk about the coming Social Security shortfall and the Medicare shortfall, but we do not talk about the long-term care shortfall. The truth is that our current long-term care system will be inadequate to deal with the aging of the baby boom generation, the oldest of whom are now turning 60. Our bill helps to create the infrastructure we will need to create the high- quality, community based long term care system of the future. And it will give families the small amount of outside help they need to continue providing care to their loved ones at home. And, finally, in a common sense decision last June, the Supreme Court found that, to the extent Medicaid dollars are used to pay for a person's long term care, that person has a right to receive those services in the most integrated setting. States must take practical steps to avoid unjustified institutionalization by offering individuals with disabilities the supports they need to live in the community. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet the financial costs associated with serving people with disabilities that want to leave institutions and live in the community, and the bill I am introducing will provide that help. And so I call upon my colleagues for your support. Millions of Americans require some assistance to help them eat, dress, go to the bathroom, clean house, move from bed to wheelchair, remember to take medication, and to perform other activities that make it possible for them to live at home. These Americans live in every State and every congressional district. Most of these people have depended on unpaid caregivers--usually family members--for their needs. But a number of factors have affected the ability of family members to help. A growing number of elderly people need assistance, and aging parents will no longer be able to care for their adult children with disabilities. But they all have one thing in common with every American. We all deserve to live in our own homes, and be an integral part of our families, our neighborhoods, our communities. Community attendant services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead richer, fuller lives, perhaps have a job, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will do volunteer work, some will get an education, some will participate in recreational and other community activities. All will experience a better quality of life, and a better chance to take part in the American dream. I urge my colleagues and their staff to study our proposal over the break. I hope there will be hearings and action on this bill next year. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, along with letters in support of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Arlen Specter, I am introducing the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act. Our bill allows people to have a real choice about where they receive certain types of Medicaid long term services and supports. It also provides grants to the States to assist them as they redirect Medicaid resources into community-based services and supports. We all know that given a real choice, most Americans who need long term services and supports would rather remain in their own homes and communities than go to a nursing home. Older people want to stay in their homes; parents want to keep their children with disabilities close by; and adults with disabilities want to live in the community. And yet, even though many people prefer home and community services and supports, our current long term care program favors institutional programs. Under our current Medicaid system, a person has a right to the most expensive form of care, a nursing home bed, because nursing home care is an entitlement. But if that same person wants to live in the community, he or she is likely to encounter a lack of available services, because community services are optional under Medicaid. The deck is stacked against community living, and the purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give people a real choice. Our bill would allow any person entitled to medical assistance in a nursing facility or an intermediate care facility to use the money for community attendant services and supports. Those services and supports include help with eating, bathing, brooming, toileting, transferring in and out of a wheelchair, meal planning and preparation, shopping, household chores, using the telephone, participating in the community, and health-related functions like taking pills, bowel and bladder care, and tube feeding. In short, personal assistance services and supports help people do tasks that they would do them selves, if they did not have a disability. Personal assistance services and supports are the lowest-cost and most consumer friendly services in the long-term care spectrum. They can be provided by a variety of people, including friends and neighbors of the recipient. In many instances, with supervision, the consumer can direct his or her own care and manage his or her own attendants. This cuts down on expensive administrative overhead and the current practice of relying on medical personnel such as nurses to coordinate a person's care. States can save money and redirect medically-oriented care to those who need it most. Not only is home and community-based care what people want, it can also be far less expensive. There is a wide variation in the cost of supporting people with disabilities in the community because individuals have different levels of need. But, for the average person, the annual cost of home and community based services is less than one- half the average cost of institutional care. In 1997, Medicaid spent $56 billion on long term care. Out of that $56 billion, $42.5 billion was spent on nursing home and institutional care. This paid for a little over 1 million people. In comparison, only $13.5 billion was spent on home and community-based care--but this money paid for almost 2 million people. Community services make sound, economic sense. In fact, the States are out ahead of us here in Washington on this issue. Thirty States are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid programs. Almost every State offers at least one home and community based Medicaid waiver program. Indeed, this is one of Senator Chafee's most important legacies. He was ahead of his time. The States have realized that community based care is both popular and cost effective, and personal assistance services and supports are a key component of a successful program. And yet there are several reasons why we have to do more. Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus that Americans with disabilities should have the equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. Instead, our current Federal Medicaid policy favors exclusion over integration, and dependence over self-determination. This legislation will bring Medicaid policy in line with our broader agreement that Americans with disabilities should have the chance to move toward independence. This bill allows people to receive certain types of services in the community so that they don't have to sacrifice their full participation in society simply because they require a catheter, assistance with medication, or some other basic service. Take the example of a friend of mine in Iowa. Dan Piper works at a hardware store. He has his own apartment and just bought a VCR. He also has Down's syndrome and diabetes. For years Dan has received services through a community waiver program. But, he recently learned that he might not be able to receive some basic services under the waiver. The result of this decision? He may have to sacrifice his independence for services. Today, Dan works and contributes to the economy as both a wage earner and a consumer. But, tomorrow, he may be forced into a nursing home, far from his roommate, his job, and his family. In addition, our country is facing a long-term care crisis of epic proportions in the not-too distant future. We all talk about the coming Social Security shortfall and the Medicare shortfall, but we do not talk about the long-term care shortfall. The truth is that our current long-term care system will be inadequate to deal with the aging of the baby boom generation, the oldest of whom are now turning 60. Our bill helps to create the infrastructure we will need to create the high- quality, community based long term care system of the future. And it will give families the small amount of outside help they need to continue providing care to their loved ones at home. And, finally, in a common sense decision last June, the Supreme Court found that, to the extent Medicaid dollars are used to pay for a person's long term care, that person has a right to receive those services in the most integrated setting. States must take practical steps to avoid unjustified institutionalization by offering individuals with disabilities the supports they need to live in the community. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet the financial costs associated with serving people with disabilities that want to leave institutions and live in the community, and the bill I am introducing will provide that help. And so I call upon my colleagues for your support. Millions of Americans require some assistance to help them eat, dress, go to the bathroom, clean house, move from bed to wheelchair, remember to take medication, and to perform other activities that make it possible for them to live at home. These Americans live in every State and every congressional district. Most of these people have depended on unpaid caregivers--usually family members--for their needs. But a number of factors have affected the ability of family members to help. A growing number of elderly people need assistance, and aging parents will no longer be able to care for their adult children with disabilities. But they all have one thing in common with every American. We all deserve to live in our own homes, and be an integral part of our families, our neighborhoods, our communities. Community attendant services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead richer, fuller lives, perhaps have a job, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will do volunteer work, some will get an education, some will participate in recreational and other community activities. All will experience a better quality of life, and a better chance to take part in the American dream. I urge my colleagues and their staff to study our proposal over the break. I hope there will be hearings and action on this bill next year. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, along with letters in support of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the face of American agriculture is being changed dramatically by the quickening pace of mergers, buyouts, takeovers and vertical integration. Over the years, farm families have survived bad weather and ups and downs in the markets. They have adapted to new technologies, new ways of buying production inputs and new ways of marketing what they produce. But today farm families are being hit by a tidal wave of economic concentration and consolidation that is threatening their survival in a way that is unlike anything in the past. The pace of consolidation is being driven even faster by the disastrously low commodity prices of the past couple of years. These are deeply troubling times for anyone concerned about the future of the family farm--and we are quickly running out of time to turn things around. Senator Wellstone's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is vitally necessary because I believe that we need a time-out from the headlong rush towards ever greater economic concentration and consolidation in agriculture. All this amendment does is put a hold on mergers and acquisitions involving large agribusiness firms for a period of 18 months or until legislation is in effect addressing market concentration in the agricultural sector, whichever comes first. So it can't be longer than 18 months. All this amendment is saying is that we have to take a pause to get a handle on the mergers and acquisitions in agriculture that I believe have gotten out of hand and out of control. Some will say the amendment goes too far, as my friend from Oregon just said. But I think the merger mania in agriculture has gone way too far already. We must act before the family farm is driven to total extinction. I tell my colleagues, there is no more critical issue to the farm families of America than the rapid and sweeping changes taking place in the economic structure of agriculture. It is an issue that I believe overshadows even the record low commodity prices that are devastating rural America. Farm families and their communities have their backs against the wall, and they are fighting for survival. They are being overrun by economic forces far more powerful than they are. The least we can do is to provide a time-out before it is too late. Far too little attention has been paid to the tremendous consequences of transforming American agriculture from a system of independent family farms to one based on the corporate industrial model. Ever greater economic concentration in the food and agricultural sector affects not only farm families and rural communities. Everyone eats. Consumers ought to ask whether they will enjoy the same high-quality food at reasonable cost if our food supply is in the hands of a few corporate giants instead of many thousands of family farms. Make no mistake about it, the sweeping consolidation in the food and agricultural sector is not about productive efficiency. When it comes to efficiency, nobody beats the independent family farm. What is taking place is about the corporate bottom line: stock deals, positioning in the market, and capitalizing on economic power. Is it in the best interests of this country to have a food and agricultural system dominated by the principles and standard operating procedures of Wall Street? Does it make any sense to continue down a path of ever increasing economic power and consolidation among agribusiness firms while family farmers are driven off the land? The underlying principle of our Nation's antitrust laws is that we are all better off with a system of full, free, and fair competition in the markets. The rapidly growing economic concentration in the food and agricultural sector stands this principle on its head. We have to ask why the antitrust laws on the books are not working to stem the tide of economic concentration in agriculture. Now, the speaker before me--I listened carefully--said over and over again that we shouldn't be interfering in the marketplace. Well, there are times when we must interfere in the marketplace because unbridled exploitation of the marketplace leads to concentration, undue economic power, and monopoly practices. If you don't believe me, look what has happened with Microsoft. Why did we have the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust Acts in the first place? Because unbridled economic power led to more and more concentration, more and more monopolies, and less and less competition. I believe in the marketplace, but the marketplace must be tempered. The marketplace must be tempered by adequate rules and regulations and laws that keep one party from becoming so big it can squash out all effective competition. So to say we shouldn't interfere in the marketplace is to fly in the face of what our stated policy has been for the last century in America. We do interfere in the market. We interfere in the market to try to keep it a free and open and fair and competitive market. Otherwise, let the big get bigger, let them buy out everybody else, and let them squash competition. Why bring a case against Microsoft? Because I think it is being shown that Microsoft is engaging in anticompetitive behavior to squash out competition so that they can charge the consumers what they want to charge for what they offer, not what competition in an open market would bring to the consumers of software, but whatever Microsoft wants to charge for what they choose to sell because they can effectively squeeze out everyone else. I don't buy the argument that we have to keep our hands off of the market. We tried that in the past, and it brought us to the brink of ruination. So you have to have interventions periodically. I think where we are in agriculture now begs us for that kind of intervention. Now, there is one other important aspect of this amendment. It sets up an Agriculture Concentration and Market Power Review Commission to take a close look at economic concentration in agriculture and to make recommendations on changes in antitrust laws and other Federal laws and regulations in order to ensure that there is a fair and competitive marketplace for family farmers and rural communities. Again, in that connection, I want to say that the present Justice Department has been the most active in the area of antitrust enforcement in agriculture of any Justice Department in my experience in Washington. So I commend the Attorney General and especially commend assistant Attorney General Joel Klein for bringing new life to antitrust enforcement in agriculture and elsewhere. Incidentally, I congratulate Mr. Klein for his wisdom and judgment in taking on the Microsoft case, because I believe if this case had not been pursued, Microsoft would have gotten even bigger and bigger, and more and more of any competition would have been snuffed out. I think this case is going to help consumers. But the Justice Department can only do so much under the present state of our antitrust laws. We must keep in mind that the antitrust laws on the books were written around the close of the 19th century, and we are now at the beginning of the 21st century. The economic structure of agriculture and agricultural businesses has changed dramatically in the intervening years. In addition, there have been many court decisions interpreting and applying the general language of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Those decisions, quite frankly, have not all been favorable to the strong antitrust enforcement that I believe we need in the area of our food and agriculture system. So, at the end of this century, almost 100 years after the Sherman and Clayton Acts and after court decisions that I believe have interpreted these laws in ways that are inimical to the best interests of family farms, this amendment will put a brake on the category of large agribusiness mergers and acquisitions for a period of time, 18 months, so we can have a careful review of economic concentration in agriculture and of what need we have for changes in the law to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace in agriculture. There is a lot of rhetoric flying around about sustaining the family farm in this body. This amendment allows us to address the greatest threat to the survival of family farms now existing. This amendment provides for a pause, a breathing spell, so family farms are not driven to extinction before we can even get a handle on what has happened. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. Presdient, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I associate myself with the eloquent and erudite remarks made by my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey. He is right on target. This amendment we are about to vote on misses the mark by a mile in terms of what we ought to do. The Senator from New Jersey has been the leading advocate on the Senate floor for focusing razor-like on the real problem, which is the proliferation of guns, the ready access to guns of the youth of this country. He is right on target. I compliment the Senator for his leadership in that area and the statements made today. Again, the majority has taken a measure which has strong bipartisan support and added a poison pill--nothing more or less than a blatant political maneuver. Most of the provisions of this amendment provide critical resources to law enforcement and communities to battle the methamphetamine epidemic. This started as a strong measure, one I wholeheartedly endorsed and have cosponsored. We have in the Midwest, the West, the Southwest, a major problem with this dangerous and highly addictive drug. We need additional resources to stop the spread of meth in our rural communities and urban centers. I am a cosponsor of the bill authored by Senators Hatch and Ashcroft, including provisions to help law enforcement investigate and clean up highly toxic meth labs. It includes $15 million for meth prevention and education, $10 million for meth treatment, and authorizes funding for needed research on the treatment of meth. It also includes tougher penalties for meth lab operators and traffickers. Many of these provisions, about a third of them, are taken from the bill I introduced earlier this year called the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act. Over the past 3 years, I have worked very hard to increase the resources for law enforcement and communities to reduce the supply and demand of these illegal drugs through millions of dollars in grants for law enforcement, prevention, treatment, and research. So the methamphetamine bill is a good bill. It has strong bipartisan support. The methamphetamine amendment is a good amendment--until last-minute additions were included to undermine the bipartisan support. We now have a couple of poison pills added to it. The first is a school voucher program, private school vouchers that will divert Federal education dollars from public schools to private schools. It says for a victim of a crime at a school--a situation that no one condones--that Federal education funds could be used to send that student to a private school anywhere in the State. That sounds good, but it doesn't do anything to make schools safer. Plus there is a big loophole in the amendment. If you read the amendment, it says here: Notwithstanding any other provision of law [et cetera, et cetera] if a student becomes a victim of a violent criminal offense, including drug-related violence, while in or on the grounds of a public elementary school or secondary school that the student attends. . . . Then they can use these funds to send the student to a private school, including a religious school, anywhere in the State, wherever the parent wants the student to go. So, obviously, a student could be on the school grounds after school, in the evening, on the weekend, as most of these grounds are available as playgrounds, basketball courts, things like that, and if the violent act occurred then, which has nothing to do with the school whatsoever, these funds could be diverted. There is a big loophole in that amendment. Aside from that, that is not the way to address violence in schools. We should, instead, support violence and crime prevention programs in and around public schools, not divert resources from public to private schools. We should invest in initiatives such as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act and afterschool programs, since we know most juvenile crimes occur between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. I am on the Appropriations Committee for education. As soon as I finish my statement, I am going downstairs to continue negotiations. The President wanted $600 million for afterschool programs to keep these kids off the streets and put them into afterschool programs. The Republican leadership knocked that down in half, to $300 million. That is where we ought to be putting our money, not saying take money out of public schools and put them in vouchers. Let's do what the President wanted to do: Put $600 million in afterschool programs so these kids will be safe. We also need more counselors in schools, especially in our elementary schools, to prevent problems before they start. Public tax dollars should be spent on public schools which educate 90 percent of our Nation's children. Taxpayers' money should not go to vouchers when public schools have great needs, including providing a safe environment. Again, there is another part of this that is a poison pill, and that is the mandatory minimum provisions which were put in the amendment. The Department of Justice, all of the U.S. attorneys, including the two U.S. attorneys from the State of Iowa, oppose this provision. It does not fix the problem. Our prisons are already full. We are building new prisons. In fact, the most rapidly growing part of public housing today is our building of prisons. Yet what this amendment would do is crowd more people into those prisons and require us to build more prison cells. That is not the answer. Building more prisons, making mandatory minimum sentences, getting young people who may be first-time abusers into these prisons, is not the answer. We need more education; we need more prevention; we need more treatment; and we need more counseling for kids in elementary and secondary schools. With these two poison pills, I do not see how anyone could support this. The methamphetamine part was a good part when it started out. Then the majority decided to add some poison pills in a political maneuver. I understand the politics of it, but the politics does not mean we have to shield our eyes and cast a blind vote. I am hopeful that sometime--probably not this year--next year we will be able to bring up again a targeted methamphetamine bill, one that gets to, yes, penalties but also gets to education, prevention, treatment, and research, and put this package together in an antimethamphetamine drug bill that we can bring up and pass without all these riders and poison pills. I yield the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield my right to the floor, Mr. President, for the unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be allowed to lay down his amendments. And at the expiration of that time, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized again for the minute 20 seconds, plus 9 additional minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator intend to take in laying down the amendments?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the--what is it?--1 minute 20 seconds and ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for an additional 9 minutes, and it not be taken off the majority's time.

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. Once that time is exhausted, what business will transpire, then, on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. First of all, under what order are we operating? Is there a time limit on remarks?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. When I think of who the minimum wage increase would benefit and why it is needed--I don't think of the teenager popping corn at the movie theater. I think of the single mother of two, a full-time cashier at the local grocery store, struggling to put dinner on the table and clothe her kids. She's off welfare, but still living far below the poverty level. Right now, the minimum wage pays her less than $11,000 a year, working 40 hours a week. If we really want to help parent succeed on their own, they need a fair wage. Senator Kennedy's amendment would help us get there. Today we have the opportunity to assure that 11.8 million American workers are provided with a much needed and much deserved raise. Two- thirds of minimum wage workers are adults. Nearly sixty percent are women. More than \1/3\ are the sole breadwinners, like the woman I spoke of. Mr. President, it is a sad fact that in today's booming economy and skyrocketing executive pay, minimum wage workers earn 19 percent less, adjusted for inflation, than minimum wage workers earned 20 years ago. The proposed increased would restore the wage floor to just above its 1983 level--which is a positive step despite the fact that it would still be 13 percent below its 1979 peak. I believe that these workers are central to the U.S. economy and that they should benefit from the recent surge in economic growth--not be left behind. But, I keep hearing the same tired argument echo in this chamber-- that raising the minimum wage would cause widespread job loss. Critics need to find another argument--because they're wrong on this one-- always have been. Let's look at what happened last time: The Economic Policy Institute reported that in September 1996, one month before the minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $4.75, the national unemployment rate was 5.2 percent. In December 1997, two months after the second annual increase boosted the minimum wage to $5.15, the national unemployment rate was 4.2 percent--a full point lower. More telling, retail trade jobs which disproportionately employ low wage workers, grew as fast as jobs overall. A recent Business Week editorial backed that up saying-- In a fast-growth, low-inflation economy, higher minimum wages raise income, not unemployment. The workers who this amendment would target are central to the economy--and they should benefit from the incredible growth of our economy. I know that there are proposals for a more gradual increase in the minimum wage--3 years instead of 2. This would cut the income of a full-time, year-around worker roughly $1,500 over three years compared with the current proposal. The minimum wage has already lost a lot of ground with inflation. The three-year proposal would only hinder this effort to catch up. There is another critical piece of Senator Kennedy's amendment-- stopping the abuse of workers on U.S. land. It would apply the U.S. minimum wage to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--the CNMI, also known as Saipan. The local government's current minimum wage there is $3.10 an hour. This amendment would go a long way toward relieving some of the egregious abuse and exploitation of temporary foreign workers brought to the U.S. territory to work at the garment factories--most of which are owned by foreign interests. The bottom line is this: All of America deserves a raise--that includes those living and working in Saipan--and the 143,000 Iowans who would benefit from the raise. Profits and productivity are way up. There is room to give workers a wage they deserve without hurting economic growth. The rest of the economy shouldn't be doing better than the people who make it run. So I urge my colleagues to support a raise in the minimum wage. It is the right thing to do for women, for America's families, and it is long overdue. The Kennedy amendment also includes a number of very important tax provisions that I strongly support. One of the most important points about the tax provisions is that the new tax benefits are fully paid for. The cost of these benefits are offset both for the coming year and for the coming ten years so we do not eat into the funds we need to pay for Social Security and needed improvements in Medicare as the baby boomers start retiring. It closes tax loopholes that allow some large companies to escape paying their fair share of taxes by creating artificial accounting gimmicks that have no purpose whatsoever except shifting the burden of taxes from a company to average taxpayers or the public debt. I am very pleased that this amendment includes the text of S. 1300, the Older Workers Protection Act, which I have sponsored. Across America, workers have worked for companies anticipating the secure retirement which is their due and expectation under their company's pension plan. Now, as more Americans than ever before in history approach retirement, some employers are trying to cut their pension benefits. Under current law, a company cannot take away pension benefits that have already been earned. But, in a slight of hand, when some companies change their pension plan making it less generous, they quietly, simply do not pay anything into an employee's account, often for 5 years or more till the employee's pension is ``worn away'' to the lower value of the new plan. This wear away is, I believe illegal under current age discrimination law. It certainly is a violation of the spirit of the law. This provision would clear, real protections for many thousands of workers who are having their pensions slashed without their knowledge. This measure eliminates wear away. It provides a company must pay into an employee's pension account under a new pension plan without regard to higher accrued benefits that might have been earned prior to plan change. The amendment also provides for numerous provisions that help smaller businesses and their owners that I support. These include: 100 percent deductibility for self-employed health insurance staring on January 1, that I have been working for many years, A tax credit for the start up costs of a small company pension plan including a 50 percent credit for the match that a small employer puts into a employee's account during the first 5 years. This could really make a difference; giving employers real incentives to setting up quality pension plans so crucial to workers retirement, a 25 percent tax credit for an employer's cost in setting up a day care center, Expanding the amount a small business can expanse to 25,000, Extension of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the related to Work Tax Credit, Expanding the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. But, I would have liked to see a far faster increase in the increase in this program than the amendment provided. The measure contains a number of benefits of particular interest to farmers that I strongly support including a provision that prevents the use of income averaging pushing a farmer into having to pay the Alternative Minimum tax. And it provides for a 10 year carryback for farmers that I have been advocating. This would I believe it would be important to have the carryback provision take effect for loses that occurred in both 1998 and 1999. On the other hand, the Republican tax amendment has a net cost of over $75 billion over the coming decade that is not offset by closing tax loop holes or by other means. That means that the Republican proposal will have the likely effect of cutting into the funds we need to protect Social Security and to preserve and improve Medicare. That is a real problem under current projections of government revenues and costs. But it is even worse if we end up with a serious downturn in our economy. Some claim that the reason for these tax provisions is a desire to mitigate the costs of the minimum wage increase on small employers. But, the burden on Social Security and Medicare is three times the effect of the estimated effect of the version of the minimum wage provisions in the Majority package. Many of the provisions are worthy of support, many are also in the Democratic proposal where they are paid for. It also contains some provisions that I support but which were not included in the Democratic proposal because of its cost. These include the tax benefits for health insurance and long term care. On the other hand, this proposal unfairly benefits the wealthy. For example, there is a $396 million cost to the government over 10 years to allow a person to increase the amount of money that can be received from a defined benefit plan from $130,000 to $160,000 per year. Every penny of this cost benefits those at the top of the income scale, not one of whom is making less than 10 times the minimum wage just from one retirement benefit! Unfortunately, there are a large number of provisions in the GOP plan that reduce the incentive for small businesses to set up a good pension plan for their workers. The tax code provides about $130 billion a year in tax benefits to promote pensions. The purpose of that considerable public investment is to provide incentives for people to invest in pensions and for companies to fund pension plans for all of their workers, not just owners and key employees. Many small employers are pushed by the law's limits on what they can put into their own pension accounts without providing benefits to all employees to provide decent pension plans for their workers. The majority amendment reduces those restraints and will likely result in far fewer employees getting pensions. That is bad public policy. Lastly, the majority amendment includes provisions that provides significant special interest loopholes in the tax code. There is a provision regarding ESOPs: employee stock ownership plans. The Treasury believes this provision opens up a significant loophole for some taxpayers. If a high income self employed person or someone in a partnership with others, arranges that all of the people that work with him and his partners are considered employees of another entity, then the partners can incorporate and form an ESOP. Under the provision in the amendment, the doctors could then defer all of the income they desire, effectively as pension income without any limit. So, if they each make $300,000 and one decides that he needs to spend only $150,000 to live on, that high income taxpayer could defer their taxes on the whole whopping $150,000 unspent. That is outrageous. Why should we be putting these very generous loopholes in the tax code that allow a few to not pay their fair share of taxes? They become a special class of taxpayers who only have to pay taxes on what they spend and everything they save goes into the equivalent of a super IRA with all taxes deferred. That makes no sense at all. We need tax provisions that are designed to promote the creation of pensions for the average employee making $25,000 or $50,000, not creating special provisions only of interest to very high income taxpayers that actually reduce their interest in setting up pension plans for their workers. I urge that we pass the Kennedy amendment and reject the majority amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the passage of Senate Bill 1809, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. As the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the former chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I take a particular interest in the Developmental Disabilities Act, which has been a cornerstone of our national policy for people with disabilities. In fact, the Supreme Court cited the Developmental Disabilities Act in the recent Olmstead decision as evidence of Congress' intent that people with disabilities should have the choice to receive services in the community. The entities funded under the Act--the Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Affiliated Programs, and the Protection and Advocacy systems--have enabled us to move away from a service system that denied people with disabilities the choice to receive services where families and individuals want them--in their own homes, communities, and neighborhoods. This year's reauthorization is very important for several reasons. First, we must continue our progress toward ensuring that people with developmental disabilities achieve their maximum potential through increased self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration in all facets of life. Second, we must ensure that people with developmental disabilities are free from abuse and neglect in all aspects of the service delivery system. This bill will help protect people with disabilities from abuse and neglect no matter where they live--inside an institution or in the community. And finally, we must do more to strengthen and support families as they provide care and support to family members with a disability. Family caregivers are the true heroes of our long-term care system. In Title II of this bill, Congress lends support to State efforts to give individuals with disabilities the choice to stay at home, with their families. I thank Senator Jeffords for acknowledging my strong interest and contributions to this important title. This Family Support grant program gives flexibility and authority to the States in designing statewide systems of family support services for families of children with disabilities. It is our intention that all activities conducted under the Family Support program should be family-centered and family- directed. This means that services and programs should facilitate the full participation and control by families of children with disabilities in decisions relating to the supports that will meet the priorities of the family; and in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of the statewide system of family support. We have given States the flexibility of defining what Family Support services will be provided. Family Support services should lead to the integration and inclusion of children with disabilities and their families in the use and participation of the same community resources that are used by and available to other individuals and families. Family Support services may include help with service coordination; the provision of goods and services such as specialized evaluations and diagnostic services, adaptive equipment, respite care, personal assistance services, homemaker and chore services, behavioral supports, assistive technology services and devices, permanency and future planning, home and vehicle modifications and repairs, equipment and consumable supplies, transportation, specialized nutrition and clothing, counseling and mental health services, family education and training services, communication services, crisis intervention, daycare and child care for a child with a disability, supports and services for integrated and inclusive community activities, parent or family member support groups, peer support, sitter service or companion service, education aids; and financial assistance, which may include cash subsidies, allowances, voucher or reimbursement systems, low-interest loans, or lines of credit. A statewide system of Family Support Services means a system that is family-centered and family-directed, and that assists and enables families to receive rights and procedural safeguards and to gain access to social, medical, legal, educational, and other supports and services; and that include follow along services that ensure that the changing needs of the child and family are met; the coordination and monitoring of services provided to the family; the provision of information to children with disabilities and their families about the availability of services, and assistance to such children and their families in obtaining appropriate services; and the facilitation and organization of existing social networks and natural sources of support, and community resources and services. Such a statewide system should also be culturally competent, community-centered, and comprehensive so that it addresses the needs of all families of children with disabilities, including unserved and underserved populations; and addresses such needs without regard to the age, type of disability, race, ethnicity, or gender of such children or the major life activity for which such children need the assistance. When applying for a grant, States should demonstrate the nature and extent of the involvement of families of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities in the development of the application, including the involvement of unserved and underserved populations; and in strategies for actively involving families of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities. In the application, States should also describe the unmet needs for family support for families of children with disabilities in the State. When applying for a grant, States should designate a lead entity that will coordinate activities funded under the grant with activities of other relevant State and local agencies. The lead agency should have the capacity to promote a statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities throughout the State that is family-centered and family-directed; to promote and implement systems change activities; and to maximize access to public and private funds for family support services for families of children with disabilities. The application should also designate the involvement of other State or local agencies, including local councils, in the preparation of the application and the continuing role of each agency in the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities. We have given States maximum flexibility in selecting activities they will implement in providing family support services for families of children with disabilities. The State may support training and technical assistance activities for family members, service providers, community members, professionals, students, and others to increase family participation, choice, and control in the provision of family support services for families of children with disabilities; to develop or strengthen family-centered and family-directed approaches to services, including service coordination services, service planning services, and respite care services; and to assist families of children with disabilities in accessing natural and community supports and in obtaining benefits and services. A State may conduct needs assessments, evaluations of data related to the statewide system of family support for families of children with disabilities, or pilot demonstration projects to demonstrate new approaches to the provision of family support services for families of children with disabilities. A State may also support activities to identify and coordinate Federal and State policies, resources, and services, relating to the provision of family support services for families of children with disabilities, including interagency activities and agreements. In addition, a State may conduct outreach activities to locate families who are eligible for family support services for families of children with disabilities; to solicit input from such families; and to identify groups who are unserved and underserved. Such activities may involve the creation or maintenance of, support of, or provision of, assistance to statewide and community parent organizations, and organizations that provide family support to families of children with disabilities; the dissemination of relevant information; and other education activities. In closing, I remind my colleagues that the toughest barriers faced by people with disabilities are not architectural, they are attitudinal. They are not in the environment, they are in our hearts and in our minds. When people with disabilities are integrated throughout our communities, we are given the opportunity to change our attitudes from ones based on stereotypes, fear, and ignorance, to ones based on admiration, acceptance, and affection. In this way, the Developmental Disabilities Act benefits all of us. Not only are people with disabilities assisted in taking their rightful place in the mainstream of American society. Not only are families that include a child with a disability given access to the supports, resources, and services needed to maintain family unity. But in the process, we all gain from the opportunity to experience people with developmental disabilities as friends, as neighbors, as co-workers, as classmates. I especially thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their leadership on this issue, and I am glad to join so many of my colleagues from the HELP Committee as a co-sponsor of this legislation.