Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I answer the Senator affirmatively. I have had that same experience, yes.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague and friend from Illinois for enlightening this issue and for clearly drawing what this amendment is all about. Again, a vote in favor of the amendment which I have offered states we will support Roe v. Wade, that Roe v. Wade should be the law, that a woman's right to choose should be kept under the provisions of Roe v. Wade, as further elaborated in the Casey case. A vote against my amendment would say you would be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and taking away a woman's fundamental right to choose. I agree with the Senator from Illinois. In closing my remarks, knowing others want to speak, the Roe decision recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. The decision is a profoundly private, life- altering decision. As the Roe Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in our society. I think there are some things we ought to be doing to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions. We could, for example, increase funding for family planning. Every time we try to do that, there are those who are opposed to increasing funding for family planning. We could mandate insurance coverage for contraception. That could help. But, no, there are those who say we shouldn't do that either. We could have more support for contraception research. There are those who say, no, we shouldn't do that either. And those who are opposed, by and large, to increasing funding for family planning and insurance coverage for contraception and contraception research are the same ones who want to overturn Roe v. Wade or take away a woman's right to have a late-term abortion in the case of grievous health or life-threatening situations. A little bit off the subject of Roe v. Wade, but which I think is particularly important to point out, is that Saturday, October 23, 3 days from today, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was murdered in his home in Amherst, NY, 1 year ago this Saturday. As most are aware, there have been five sniper attacks on U.S. and Canadian physicians who perform abortions since 1994. Each of these attacks has occurred on or close to Canada's Remembrance Day, November 11. All of the victims in these attacks were shot in their homes by a hidden sniper who used a long-range rifle. Dr. Slepian tragically was killed. Three other physicians were seriously wounded in these attacks. I am reading a letter sent to the majority leader, Senator Lott, dated October 18, signed by the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the executive director of the American Medical Women's Association, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice, the president and CEO of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, and the executive director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. All of these signed the letter to Senator Lott spelling out what I said. The letter goes on: Federal law enforcement officials are urging all women's health care providers, regardless of their geographic location, to be on a high state of alert and to take appropriate protective precautions during the next several weeks. Security directives have been issued to all physicians who perform abortions for clinics or in their private practices, and to all individuals who have been prominent on the abortion issue. Senator Lott, on behalf of our physician members, and in the interest of the public safety of the citizens of the US and Canada, we urge you to reconsider the scheduling of a floor debate on S-1692 at this time. As you are aware, each time this legislation has been considered, extremely explicit, emotional and impassioned debate has been aroused. We have grave fears that the movement of this bill during this particularly dangerous period has the potential to inflame anti-abortion violence that might result in tragic consequences. We sincerely hope that you will take the threats of this October-November period as seriously as we do, and that you will use your considerable influence to ensure that the Senate does not inadvertently play into the hands of extremists who might well be inspired to violence during this time. We urge you to halt the movement of S. 1692. Please work with us to ensure that the senseless acts of violence against U.S. citizens are not repeated in 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is one other thing I want to mention. I am going to read a letter because this person is a personal friend of mine, someone I have gotten to know over the years. I believe the Senator from California has a picture of Kim Koster. I ask a page to bring me the picture back here, if I may have that. This photo is Kim Koster and her husband, Dr. Barrett Koster. They are both friends of mine, whom I have known for I guess about 3 or 4 years. I am going to read her letter in its entirety: My name is Kim Koster. My husband, Dr. Barrett Koster, and I have been married for more than seven years. We have known since before we were married that we wanted very much to have children. To our joy, in November of 1996 we discovered that we were expecting. The news was a thrill, to us and to our family and friends. We were showered with gifts and hand-me-downs, new toys, books and love. Barry's family gave us a 19th-century cradle which had rocked his family to sleep since before his grandmother Sophie was born more than 100 years ago. Our first ultrasound was scheduled a little more than four months into the pregnancy. On Thursday, February 20, we saw our baby and spent five short minutes rejoicing in the new life, and then the blow fell. The radiologist informed us that he had ``significant concerns'' about the size of the baby's head. His diagnosis was the fatal neural tube defect known as anencephaly, or the lack of a brain. After four months of excitement and joy, our world came crashing down around us. Once the diagnosis was made, there was no further medical treatment available for me in our hometown, and we were referred to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City. Our first OB appointment there was set for Monday morning. My husband and I spent that long weekend, the longest of our lives, doing research on anencephaly, talking with family and friends, and hearing personal stories about the fate of anencephalic babies. In Iowa City, a genetics OB specialist examined a new ultrasound and immediately confirmed the diagnosis. An alpha- feto-protein blood test and amniotic fluid sample only drove the truth harder home. Our fetus had only a rudimentary brain. There were blood vessels, which enabled the heart to beat, and ganglion, which enabled basic motor function. There was no cerebellum and no cerebral cortext. There was no skull above the eyes. I had been preparing for pregnancy for more than a year with diet, exercise and prenatal vitamins, including the dose of folic recommended to prevent neural tube defects. Yet we still lost our child to one of the most severe and lethal birth defects known. Our baby had no brain--would never hear the Mozart and Bach I played for it every day on our great- grandmother's piano, would never look up into our eyes or snuggle close to our hearts, would never even have an awareness of its own life. On Tuesday, February 25, 1997, my husband and I chose to end my pregnancy with a common abortion procedure known as ``D and E.'' As difficult as it was, I literally thank God that I had that option. As long as there are families who face the devastating diagnosis we received, abortions must remain a safe and legal alternative. In 1998, Barry and I discovered to our delight that I was pregnant again. Although we were overjoyed, our happiness was tempered by the knowledge that we had a 1-in-25 chance of a second anencephalic pregnancy. This time, we asked our loved ones to hold off on the baby gifts, we played no Bach, and every week was a mix of excitement and unavoidable worry. And on July 17, 1998, an ultrasound revealed the worst. We had a second anencephalic pregnancy--a second daughter lost to this lethal birth defect. Fortunately for my medical care, the so-called ``partial birth abortion'' bans have been vetoed by President Clinton, and my doctors were able to provide me with a safe, compassionate procedure that brought this second tragic pregnancy to an end. And thanks to those doctors and their ability to give me that care, my recovery has been rapid-- enabling Barry and I to plan to try again. But if this bill becomes law, we would not be able to do so. For the chances of our having a third anencephalic pregnancy are all the way up to 1 in 4, and this bill would ban any procedures that would help us. It would force me to carry another doomed child through all nine months. That idea is far more horrifying than all the unreal anti-choice rhetoric that can be manufactured, for the reality is that this is a terrible law, a grievous interference between doctor and patient, and would only compound the tragedy and heartache faced by families like us. Please protect the health of women and families like mine, and reject S. 1692. There is nothing one can add to that. S. 1692 would say that the Kim Kosters in families across the country that we legislators--I am not a doctor, I am not a theologian, I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist; but the bill proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania would say that we know more than all of them, that we stand in the judgment seat of the Mrs. Kosters: We are going to decide for you. Attorneys? I am an attorney. Maybe some of us are teachers, I don't know. Maybe some are social workers or business people. There are a variety of different people here on the floor of the Senate. But somehow we get to tell you: Mrs. Koster, you and your husband have no right to decide. We are going to do it for you. Our decision is, no matter what--even under these terrible circumstances--you are going to have to carry that to term and bear the consequences of that. Maybe there are some in this body who want to sit in that kind of judgment seat. Count me out. Count me out. I leave these decisions to Kim and her husband, to her doctor, to her own faith, to her own religion to make those very profound, anxiety-producing, soul-wrenching decisions. That is why I have fought for this amendment--to state loudly and clearly that Roe v. Wade gave women that right and we don't want it overturned. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered will basically express the sense of the Congress in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. With all of the amendments that keep coming up and trying to chip away at Roe v. Wade, Senator Boxer and I decided that it was important for us to see if there was support in the Congress for Roe v. Wade. I know there are some groups around the United States that believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I do not believe that. I think it was an eminently wise decision. As time goes on, and as we reflect back, the decision enunciated by Justice Blackmun becomes more and more profound and more elegant in its simplicity and its straightforwardness. However, it seems as we get wrapped up in these emotionally charged debates on partial birth abortion, we lose sight of what it is that gave women their full rights under the laws of our Nation and our States. I was interested a couple of minutes ago in what Senator Mikulski pointed out; that the eminent theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, had basically stipulated that in soul man--that is the putting of the soul in the human body--occurred 6 weeks after conception for a man but 10 weeks after conception for a woman. That was a theology that held for a long time. I studied Saint Thomas Aquinas when I was in Catholic school. He was an eminent theologian, as I said. We look back and we say: That is ridiculous. The very division of 6 weeks for a man and 10 weeks for a woman is kind of ridiculous. Medical science has progressed. We know a lot of things they did not know at that time. What will we know 50 years from now that we do not know today? Women, through the centuries, as we have developed more and more the concept of the rights of man--and I use man in the terms of mankind, all humans, the human race--that as we enlarge the concept of human rights--those rights we have that cannot legitimately be interfered with or trespassed upon by the power of any government--as we progressed in our thinking about those human rights, all too often women were left out of the equation. It was not until recent times, even in our own country, that women had the right to own property. It was not until recent times that women even had the right to vote in this country, not to say what rights are still denied women in other countries around the globe. As we progressed in our thinking of human rights, we have come a long way from Thomas Aquinas who said that for some reason a man gets a soul a lot earlier than a woman gets a soul. Yes, we've come a long way. I believe our concept of human rights now is basically that human rights applies to all of us, regardless of gender, regardless of position at birth, regardless of nationality or station in life, race, religion, nationality; that human rights inure to the person. One of the expansions of those human rights was for women to have the right to choose. After all, it is the female who bears children. That particular right inures to a woman. It was the particular genius of Roe v. Wade that Justice Blackmun laid out an approach to reproductive rights that basically guarantees to the woman in the first trimester a total restriction on the State's power to interfere with that decision. In the second trimester, the State may, under certain inscriptions, interfere. And in the third trimester, after the further decision of the Casey case, the States may interfere to save the life or health of the mother. We have a situation now where women in our country are given--I should not use the word ``given''--but have attained their equal rights and their full human rights under law. That was Roe v. Wade. Since that time, many in the legislatures of our States and many in this legislature, the Congress of the United States--the House and the Senate--have sought repeatedly to overturn Roe v. Wade; if not totally to overturn it, but to chip away at it--a little bit here, a little bit there, with the final goal to overturn Roe v. Wade. According to CRS, only 10 pieces of legislation were introduced in either the House or Senate before the Roe decision. Since 1973, more than 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced. The majority of these bills have sought to restrict abortions. Unfortunately, what is often lost in the rhetoric and in some of this legislation--is the real significance of the Roe decision. The Roe decision recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. The decision whether to bear a child is profoundly private and life altering. As the Roe Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in society. I do not believe that any abortion is desirable--nobody does. As Catholic and a father, I've struggled with it myself. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to insist that my personal views be the law of the land. I think there are some things that Congress can do to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce abortion by increasing funding for family planning, mandating insurance coverage for contraception and supporting contraception research. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe it would establish the one important principle that we can agree on--that despite the difference in our views, we will not strip away a woman's fundamental right to choose. So I think we need to make it clear, we need to make it clear that we have no business--especially we in the Congress of the United States-- have no business interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose.

Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor, I would be delighted to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I was. I didn't know the exact figure, but I knew many women died or were permanently injured and disabled because of illegal abortions performed in this country--because they had no other option.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe I had the floor. I had the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I will ask it again, Mr. President.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my colleague from California, I want to thank her for her stalwart support and defense of Roe v. Wade through all these years. I follow in her footsteps, I can assure you. But I remember as a kid growing up in a small town in rural Iowa, that it was commonplace knowledge, if you had the money, and you were a young woman who became pregnant, you could go out of State; you could go someplace and have an abortion. But if you were poor and had nowhere else to go, you went down to sought out someone who would do an illegal abortion. Those are the women who suffered and died and were permanently disfigured.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to express to the conferees of Commerce Justice State Appropriations the importance of keeping the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the spending bill. I am a cosponsor of this legislation that expands the federal criminal civil rights statute on hate crime by removing unnecessary obstacles to federal prosecution and by providing authority for federal involvement in crimes directed at individuals because of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. In particular, prejudice against people with disabilities takes many forms. Such bias often results in discriminatory actions in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Laws like the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act are designed to protect people with disabilities from such prejudice But disability bias also manifests itself in the form of violence-- and it is imperative that the federal government send a message that these expressions of hatred are not acceptable in our society. For example, a man with mental disabilities from New Jersey was kidnaped by a group of nine men and women and was tortured for three hours, then dumped somewhere with a pillowcase over his head. While captive, he was taped to a chair, his head was shaved, his clothing was cut to shreds, and he was punched, whipped with a string of beads, beaten with a toilet brush, and, possibly, sexually assaulted. Prosecutors believe the attack was motivated by disability bias. In the state of Maine, a married couple both living openly with AIDS, struggling to raise their children. Their youngest daughter was also infected with HIV. The family had broken their silence to participate in HIV/AIDS education programs that would inform their community about the tragic reality of HIV infection in their family. As a result of the publicity, the windows of their home were shot out and the husband was forcibly removed from his car at a traffic light and severely beaten. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have included people with disabilities as a protected class under their hate crimes statutes. However, state protection is neither uniform nor comprehensive. The federal government must send the message that hate crimes committed on the basis of disability are as intolerable as those committed because of a person's race, national origin, or religion. And, federal resources and comprehensive coverage would give this message meaning and substance. Thus, it is critical that people with disabilities share in the protection of the federal hate crimes statute. Senator Kennedy's Hate Crimes bill has the endorsement of the Administration and over 80 leading civil rights and law enforcement organizations. It is a constructive and sensible response to a serious problem that continues to plague our nation--violence motivated by prejudice. It deserves full support, and I am hopeful that it is included in the final version that the President signs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understood that the conference report was supposed to contain the following language concerning an economic development initiative item approved in the FY 99 VA-HUD Appropriations measure: ``The description of the Warrior Hotel EDI project in the FY 99 HUD-VA Appropriations report is modified to the following: $1 million for the restoration of the Warrior Hotel in Sioux City, IA, to be used for adult day care and other services or uses consistent with the revitalization of the Central Business District''. Unfortunately, this language was inadvertently left out of the report.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation I originally proposed during the 105th Congress, the Social Security Consumer Protection Act. Quite simply, this bill is designed to protect constituents from what has been an all too common consumer scam. I introduced a similar bill during the prior Congress after an investigation by my staff found that unsuspecting consumers--from new parents to newlyweds to senior citizens--were falling prey to con artists who charged them for services that are available free of charge from the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many of these schemes involve the use of materials and names which purposely mislead consumers into believing the scam artists are affiliated with the government. Companies operating under official sounding names like Federal Document Services, Federal Record Service Corporation, National Records Service, and U.S. Document Services are mailing information to thousands of Americans, scaring them into remitting a free to receive basic government services, such as a new Social Security number and card for a newborn or changing names upon marriage or divorce. One of my constituents, Deb Conlee of Fort Dodge, received one of these mailings. It sounded very official. It began, ``Read Carefully: Important Facts About your Social Security Card.'' The response envelope is stamped ``SSA-7701'' giving the impression that it is connected with the SSA. The solicitation goes on to say that she is required to provide SSA with any name change associated with her recent marriage and get a new Social Security card. It then urges her to send the company $14.75 to do this on her behalf. It includes the alarming statement, ``We urge you to do this immediately to help avoid possible problems where your Social Security benefits or joint income taxes might be questioned.'' What the solicitation fails to mention, of course, is that these services are provided at no charge by SSA. After hearing Ms. Conlee's story, I contacted SSA and asked them to investigate these complaints. Then SSA Commissioner Shirley Chater responded that the services provided by these companies, ``Are completely unnecessary. Not only do they fail to produce any savings of time or effort for the customer, they also tend to delay issuance of the new Social Security card.'' In its investigations, SSA received hundreds of complaints involving over 100 companies. The Postal Inspection Service has received hundreds of additional complaints. The Inspector General of SSA validated many of these complaints, including finding repeated cases of violations of Federal law. While it is already illegal for a company to imply any direct connection with a Federal agency, it is not illegal to charge for the very same services that are available at no cost to the Government. The Social Security Consumer Protection Act addresses this issue in a few important ways. First, the bill prohibits charging for services that are provided for free by SSA and HHS unless the following statement is prominently displayed on the first page of the solicitation in bold type, 16-point font, ``Important Public Disclosure: The product or service described here and assistance to obtain the product or service is available free of charge from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. You may wish to check the government section of your local phone book for the phone number of your local Social Security Administration or Department of Health and Human Services office for help in obtaining this service for no charge or you may choose to use our service for a fee.'' Should a consumer decide to use the services of one of these companies, they are protected from inappropriate use of their personal information. This bill prohibits the sale, transfer or use of personal information obtained on consumers through such a solicitation without their consent on a separate authorization form that clearly and plainly explains how their personal information could be used. I am joined in introducing this important consumer legislation by Senators Bryan, Kerrey, and Dodd. I am also pleased that the Social Security Consumer Protection Act enjoys the support of such consumer organizations as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Consumer Federation of America. Mr. President, these scams must come to an end. Consumers deserve full disclosure. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring consumers understand their rights when it comes to obtaining services from their government. I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Social Security Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation I originally proposed during the 105th Congress, the Social Security Consumer Protection Act. Quite simply, this bill is designed to protect constituents from what has been an all too common consumer scam. I introduced a similar bill during the prior Congress after an investigation by my staff found that unsuspecting consumers--from new parents to newlyweds to senior citizens--were falling prey to con artists who charged them for services that are available free of charge from the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many of these schemes involve the use of materials and names which purposely mislead consumers into believing the scam artists are affiliated with the government. Companies operating under official sounding names like Federal Document Services, Federal Record Service Corporation, National Records Service, and U.S. Document Services are mailing information to thousands of Americans, scaring them into remitting a free to receive basic government services, such as a new Social Security number and card for a newborn or changing names upon marriage or divorce. One of my constituents, Deb Conlee of Fort Dodge, received one of these mailings. It sounded very official. It began, ``Read Carefully: Important Facts About your Social Security Card.'' The response envelope is stamped ``SSA-7701'' giving the impression that it is connected with the SSA. The solicitation goes on to say that she is required to provide SSA with any name change associated with her recent marriage and get a new Social Security card. It then urges her to send the company $14.75 to do this on her behalf. It includes the alarming statement, ``We urge you to do this immediately to help avoid possible problems where your Social Security benefits or joint income taxes might be questioned.'' What the solicitation fails to mention, of course, is that these services are provided at no charge by SSA. After hearing Ms. Conlee's story, I contacted SSA and asked them to investigate these complaints. Then SSA Commissioner Shirley Chater responded that the services provided by these companies, ``Are completely unnecessary. Not only do they fail to produce any savings of time or effort for the customer, they also tend to delay issuance of the new Social Security card.'' In its investigations, SSA received hundreds of complaints involving over 100 companies. The Postal Inspection Service has received hundreds of additional complaints. The Inspector General of SSA validated many of these complaints, including finding repeated cases of violations of Federal law. While it is already illegal for a company to imply any direct connection with a Federal agency, it is not illegal to charge for the very same services that are available at no cost to the Government. The Social Security Consumer Protection Act addresses this issue in a few important ways. First, the bill prohibits charging for services that are provided for free by SSA and HHS unless the following statement is prominently displayed on the first page of the solicitation in bold type, 16-point font, ``Important Public Disclosure: The product or service described here and assistance to obtain the product or service is available free of charge from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. You may wish to check the government section of your local phone book for the phone number of your local Social Security Administration or Department of Health and Human Services office for help in obtaining this service for no charge or you may choose to use our service for a fee.'' Should a consumer decide to use the services of one of these companies, they are protected from inappropriate use of their personal information. This bill prohibits the sale, transfer or use of personal information obtained on consumers through such a solicitation without their consent on a separate authorization form that clearly and plainly explains how their personal information could be used. I am joined in introducing this important consumer legislation by Senators Bryan, Kerrey, and Dodd. I am also pleased that the Social Security Consumer Protection Act enjoys the support of such consumer organizations as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Consumer Federation of America. Mr. President, these scams must come to an end. Consumers deserve full disclosure. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring consumers understand their rights when it comes to obtaining services from their government. I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Social Security Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. For the first farmer, Smith, all 500 acres are corn base. Those are the acres on which the direct AMTA-type payments are made. Again, 250 acres planted to corn and 250 acres planted to soybeans. That farmer will receive an additional AMTA type corn payment of $17,901 and a soybean payment of $2040, for a total of $19,941. Keep in mind this farmer is receiving both a corn payment and a soybean payment on the very same acre on some of the land. The second farmer, Jones, has 500 acres, but this farmer has only 250 acres of corn base. Again, 250 acres in corn and 250 acres in soybeans. This farmer will receive $8950 in AMTA type corn payments and $2040 in soybean payments, for a total of $10,990. Another farmer, Brown, has 500 acres, but no corn base, with half the land in soybeans and half in corn. This farmer will receive $2040, because that is all that would be paid on the soybeans. In summary, 500 acres of land, half planted to corn, half planted to soybeans, and you have a range of payments from $2040 all the way up to $19,941. All because the AMTA payments are based on what was planted 20 years ago or more, not on what farmers are planting now. And here is the real kicker, a landowner who chooses to plant nothing can receive a payment. So the owner of that 500 acres could still receive the $17,901 without planting a seed. I call this the Palm Beach Farmer example. Mr. President, there is a lot wrong with this bill, but there is an overriding need to get assistance out to farmers. Frankly, I have little confidence that we would get anything better if this bill were sent back to conference. I have amendments that I am still prepared to offer. But we couldn't even get the House conferees to come back to the table. They were forbidden by their leadership to do so. This bill could have been much better, and I deeply regret that we were foreclosed from improving it. So I will vote for this conference report,with some reluctance, simply because so much is at stake for farm families and rural communities in my state of Iowa and across our Nation. As I said, it amounts to throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person. Let's throw the liferaft out; but let us change the bill next year so we are not back once again trying to pass emergency farm assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. How much? Nine minutes and how much?

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield myself 4 minutes and hurry. I want to say a few words about both parts of the bill before us. The first part is the regular fiscal year 2000 Ag appropriations bill. I commend and thank the chairman, Senator Cochran, and thank our ranking member, Senator Kohl, for their hard work and conscientious effort to craft this bill under difficult spending constraints. There are important provisions in the bill providing funding for agriculture programs, agricultural research, food safety, nutrition, conservation, rural economic development, and in other areas. There are a number of items in this bill that are especially important to my State of Iowa, which I will not list here. I just want to say the regular fiscal year 2000 bill is basically a good bill under the circumstances. There is a matter that deserves special mention; and that is, in the Senate we had an overwhelming vote of 70-28 to remove sanctions on food and medicine. The Senate conferees also voted in the conference to hold the Senate position, but the House conferees adjourned before we could even vote on sanctions reform. So after all these years of hearing all the talk about removing embargoes on food and medicine, the Republican leadership in the House walked away before we had a chance to reform it. So we still have embargoes on food, embargoes to keep our farmers from selling food to foreign customers. I also want to mention a provision that was stuck in this bill on the H2A program. That program allows bringing in foreign agricultural workers if the employer cannot find domestic workers. The provision in this bill will significantly shorten the time during which an employer has to look for U.S. workers before bringing in foreign workers. I recognize that it can be hard to find U.S. workers for agricultural jobs in some instances, but I do not think that Congress ought to be changing the law to make it easier to cut U.S. workers out of those jobs and give them to foreign workers. I now will turn to the emergency assistance package, which totals about $8.7 billion. My colleagues and I have been working since last May to get this Congress to pass a farm assistance package. We had to fight for too long this summer even to get a recognition here in Congress that there is a farm crisis. Then we had to fight to get this Congress to take any action. And finally, we had to fight for a package that would be adequate to deal with the severe economic hardship in rural America. So, we have come a long way since last spring. This emergency package will provide a good deal of assistance to help farm families survive this crisis. I am disappointed, however, that the bill uses the same payment mechanism as the failed Freedom to Farm bill and that it does not contain an adequate amount of assistance to respond to the droughts and other natural disasters around the country. The emergency package has far too little in it for livestock producers--particularly for pork producers who have lost $4 billion in equity over the past 22 months. And it contains no money for emergency conservation work and repairing flood damage. Nor is there any economic development assistance for rural communities that are suffering because of the downturn in agriculture. On balance, I am supporting the emergency package because it will get some money out to farm families who are struggling to remain in business. As I have said, it is like throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person. That is how I feel. I am standing on the shore. Someone is drowning. All I have is a leaking liferaft. Do I throw it to them or not? Of course, I do, in the hopes that shortly we will get something better. But right now our farmers are drowning. They are sinking. So this emergency bill will help for a little bit, but it is not a long- term solution to the problem. The fact that Congress is passing a stopgap emergency package for the second year in a row demonstrates that our current farm policy is not working. We must reform the failed Freedom to Farm bill before next year. Unless we reform Freedom to Farm, all the signs indicate farmers are going to need another emergency package next year, too. Frankly, you can only go to the well so many times. We cannot continue to have a farm policy in this country that lurches from one crisis to the next. It is time to address the root problem: the lack of a farm income safety net in the Freedom to Farm bill. The Freedom to Farm bill has to be changed to restore farm income protections that were eliminated when the bill was enacted. Freedom to Farm is a bankrupt farm policy and it is bankrupting America's farm families. As we have said repeatedly, this bill uses a payment mechanism that has nothing to do with what farmers planted this year. The Freedom to Fail bill is already a proven failure. So why on Earth would we want to go right back to the Freedom to Fail bill to try to remedy its shortcomings? This bill includes $5.5 billion in Freedom to Farm type payments. They would be paid out based on base acres and yields set some 20 years ago. The payments would have nothing to do with this year's planting. In fact, they can go to people who planted nothing. Using the so-called ``three-entity rule,'' an individual could get $80,000 of these payments and not have planted anything. Add that to the $80,000 in regular AMTA payments, which they also could get without planting anything. This bill then also doubles the payment limit for marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments to $150,000. Now in practice, that is $300,000 through the use of the three-entity rule. The total that potentially could be paid to one individual then is $460,000. This bill does not treat oilseeds fairly. There is a very complicated and confusing program for providing direct payments to oilseed producers. It is going to take a long time to get this program sorted out and to get the payments out to producers of soybeans and other oilseeds--and the payments are not going to be fairly distributed among producers. Here is the real irony of this emergency assistance package. With the AMTA type payments, if you did not plant anything this year you can still get as much as an extra $80,000 under this package. I have some examples under the payment scheme we have in this emergency package. All of these farmers have 500 acres of land, half planted to corn and half planted to soybeans. Yet the payments range anywhere from $19,941 down to $2,040--three neighbors right in a row, farming 500 acres--half in corn and half in soybeans. Or you can have a farmer who decides to go to Palm Beach. He has 500 acres. He did not plant anything. He is going to get $17,901 even though he never did anything. Yet for farmers in the State represented by my friend from North Carolina, who have had disaster losses--or farmers in Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota, the Northeast and East who have had drought or other disaster losses--they are going to get pennies on the dollar. Farmers who worked hard, planted a crop, have hardly anything to show for it. But here is a hypothetical example of a farmer who planted nothing, who has 500 acres, and he is going to get $17,900. That is not right. Let me run through these examples in a little more detail. I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the examples be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I strongly believe that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--or CTBT-- is in our nation's national security interests. But before I discuss my reasons for supporting the Treaty, let me first say why the Senate-- even those who are unsure of the Treaty--should support the Resolution. The past week of debate over the issue has only underscored the arguments for its ratification. I have spoken before about the history of the CTBT. Let me reiterate some of its history and why it is important to Iowans. On October 11, 1963, the Limited Test Ban Treaty entered into force after being ratified by the Senate in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 80-14 just a few weeks earlier. This treaty paved the way for future nuclear weapons testing agreements by prohibiting tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. This treaty was signed by 108 countries. Our nation's agreement to the Limited Test Ban Treaty marked the end of our nation's above ground testing of nuclear weapons, including those at the U.S. test site in Nevada. We now know, all too well, the terrible impact of exploding weapons over the Nevada desert. Among other consequences, these tests in the 1950's exposed millions of Americans to large amounts of radioactive Iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid gland and has been linked to thyroid cancer. ``Hot Spots,'' where the Iodine-131 fallout was the greatest, were identified by a National Cancer Institute report as receiving 5-16 rads of Iodine- 131. The ``Hot Spots'' included many areas far away from Nevada, including New York, Massachusetts and Iowa. Outside reviewers have shown that the 5-16 rad level is only an average, with many people having received much higher exposure levels, especially those who were children at the time. To put that in perspective, federal standards for nuclear power plants require that protective action be taken for 15 rads. To further understand the enormity of the potential exposure, consider this: 150 million curies of Iodine-131 were released by the above ground nuclear weapons testing in the United States, about three times more than from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in the former Soviet Union. It is all too clear that outlawing above-ground tests were in the interest of our nation. I strongly believe that banning all nuclear tests is also in our interests. This is a view shared by many leading Iowans. I request unanimous consent that a recent editorial from the Des Moines Register be placed in the Record. October also marked some key steps for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or CTBT. On October 2, 1992, President Bush signed into law the U.S. moratorium on all nuclear tests. The moratorium was internationalized when, just a few years later, on September 24, 1996, a second step was taken--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, was opened for signature. The United States was the first to sign this landmark treaty. Mr. President, President Clinton took a third important step in abolishing nuclear weapons tests by transmitting the CTBT to the United States Senate for ratification. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to take the additional step of ratifying the CTBT. I am hopeful that we in the Senate will ratify the Treaty, and continue the momentum toward the important goal of a world wide ban on nuclear weapons testing. Many believed we had conquered the dangerous specter of nuclear war after the Cold War came to an end and many former Soviet states became our allies. Unfortunately, recent developments in South Asia remind us that we need to be vigilant in our cooperative international efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. This weeks coup in Pakistan only makes clearer the need for a nuclear test ban treaty. The CTBT is a major milestone in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It would establish a permanent ban on all nuclear explosions in all environments for any purpose. Its ``zero- yield'' prohibition on nuclear tests would help to halt the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons. The Treaty would also establish a far-reaching verification regime that includes a global network of sophisticated seismic, hydro-acoustic and radionuclide monitoring stations, as well as on-site inspection of test sites to deter and detect violations. It is vital to our national security for the nuclear arms race to come to an end, and the American people recognize this. In a recent poll, more than 80 percent of voters supported the Treaty. It is heartening to know that the American people understand the risks of a world with nuclear weapons. It is now time for policymakers to recognize this as well. There is no better way to honor the hard work and dedication of those who developed the LTBT and the CTBT than for the U.S. Senate to immediately ratify the CTBT. It's ratification is clearly in America's and the worlds security interests. It would make the world a safer place for our children and grandchildren. Its defeat could well trigger a major new arms race in Asia--a prospect that should send chills down the backs of us all. The choice is clear. Mr. President, I have read through the treaty as best I could and looked at some of the annexes and protocols thereto. In there, there is a list of about 317 monitoring stations that would be put in place if we ratify this treaty. Right now, I understand there are about 100. So we will have three times more monitoring stations than we have right now. So to those who say we might not be able to absolutely detect every explosion over a certain amount, or under a certain amount, quite frankly, we will have a lot more monitoring stations by ratifying this treaty than we have right now. Secondly, if the explosions are so small as to be undetectable, there are provisions in the treaty that allow for a state to have an onsite inspection. So there is a whole process it goes through so we can have an onsite inspection to determine whether or not it was a nuclear explosion. Lastly, the treaty does contain a supreme interest clause in accordance with which a state party may withdraw from the treaty upon 6 month's notice, et cetera, if it determines that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest. So, at any time, if the United States, or any other sovereign nation, decides it is in their supreme interest to withdraw from the treaty, they can do so by giving 6 month's notice. Lastly, if anybody ever had any doubt about why we ought to be ratifying this treaty, the headline in this morning's paper ought to say it all: Army Stages Coup In Pakistan. Troops Arrested Prime Minister. In part, it says: India expressed deep concern with the government's ouster and put its army on high alert. If nothing else, this ought to tell us to ratify this treaty, or else we are going to have more nuclear explosions in South Asia. It is a powder keg waiting to happen. We ought to ratify the treaty.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act along with my colleague Senator Rod Grams from Minnesota. 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 famous Viking explorer is regarded as the first European to set foot on North American soil in the year 1000 AD. 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. This same legislation passed the House on July 19, 1999, and passed both the House and the Senate as amendments during the 105th Congress. 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 Kronor 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. Mr. President, the United States Congress strengthened United States- Icelandic relations by presenting a Leif Ericson statue as a gift to Iceland in 1930 as a gesture of memorializing Ericson's Voyage of Discovery. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson made October 9 ``Leif Ericson Day'' in commemoration of this famous Norwegian 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. Mr. President, the Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act 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 Coins 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. In the coming days, I will be talking to my colleagues in joining me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent for a copy of this bill to be included in the Record.