Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to yield when I can figure out what is going on around this place.

Mr. HARKIN. The bill is not open for amendment. Will the Chair advise the Senator when the bill is open for amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk. Is the bill open for amendment at this point?

Mr. HARKIN. Are we operating on a time limit?

Mr. HARKIN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in session at this late hour--we just finished the telecom bill, a very important bill for our country--but we are in session now because we do not have a farm bill. I have been on the Agriculture Committee now for 22 years, 10 in the House, 12 in the Senate. I have seen a lot of farm bills. I have worked on a lot of farm bills. Some were contentious, some sort of passed easily. But in every instance--in every single instance--in the House and in the Senate, we worked diligently on both sides of the aisle to try to reach accommodations to get a farm bill through before the end of the year. In most cases, we got it through long before the end of the year. But I remember some particular ones. I remember the 1981 farm bill when I was in the House. We passed it in the early morning hours of December 17. Why do I remember that? Because my daughter was born about 2 hours later, and I remember being on the floor trying to get the farm bill passed. The reason I recall that, aside from the fact my daughter was born a couple of hours after we finished the farm bill, was that it was late in the year. It was 1981, a very contentious year in agriculture regarding what kind of farm policy we were going to develop under the leadership of the new administration that had taken over that year. But we got our work done, and we got the farm bill passed and down to the President before the end of the year. That was with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and a Republican President. We did not filibuster, we did not hold it up. We did our work, and we got it through before the end of the year. The hue and cry that came from around the country was that we had waited too long. A lot of the finger pointing was at the Democrats, because we allegedly had waited too long and we did not get the bill through by the end of the year. But we got it through. Now here we are in February of 1996, and we still do not have a farm bill for this year. I do not want to engage in finger pointing, but I do want to say at least that no Democrat on this side has filibustered a farm bill. We have not held it up. We passed a farm bill out of the Ag Committee in late September. We could have brought it out on the floor in the month of October. We could have brought it out in the month of November. We could have brought it out in the month of December. But, no, it was not brought up. No, instead, it was taken and put in the budget reconciliation bill so that we did not have an opportunity to really debate it and amend it and fashion a farm program for the future. The President vetoed that bill, as he should have. So here we are in February, and once again, a farm bill was laid down yesterday. Immediately, a cloture motion was filed to cut off debate, to cut off amendments, to limit the time. Well, I am not here to filibuster, but I do want some time to speak on the bill, to lay out what it would mean to farmers and rural communities in my State. I want some time to be able to offer amendments that I think are worthwhile. I may not win them, but at least I feel an obligation to my farmers in Iowa to try to craft and fashion a farm bill in their best interests. Now I understand that at this late hour we are being told that the House is going to go out. The Senate wants to adjourn and come back at the end of February, and we have to pass a farm bill tonight, or we will not be able to get it done because the Senate is going to adjourn for another month. What kind of nonsense is that? We are elected to come here and get the people's legislation passed. I do not know of any compelling reason why we cannot bring the farm bill up, debate it tomorrow, or Saturday if need be. We do not need to be here Saturday; we can debate it Monday and Tuesday, and probably get it done by Tuesday night. At least everybody would have ample opportunity to speak, offer amendments, and have their amendments voted on. Then we can have a final vote on the passage of the bill and send it to conference. Yet, somehow a gun is being held to our heads tonight, and we are told that if we do not rubberstamp some farm bill that has been crafted in the back rooms--and we do not even know what is in it--that we are going to be held to blame because a farm bill was not passed here on February 1. I am telling you, Mr. President, I find this whole process contrary to everything I believe in, in terms of a democratic Government, and in terms of what I believe in, in terms of the processes here of open and free debate, with amendments, and allowing us to state our case and to try to make the best case we can for our constituents. So I am sorry, I am just not going to be a part of caving in and rubberstamping something simply because it is late, it is in February, and we have to get a farm bill passed. Our farmers need to know what to do. For Heaven's sake, they need to know what to do. But it was not this Senator, or any Senator on this side of the aisle, that kept the farm bill from coming to the floor in October, November, or December. That was not our call to make. It was not brought up on the floor. It should have been brought up. It should have been brought up in October. Then we could have finished our work and sent it to conference. It may not have been what I wanted, but at least the process would have been fair and open and I could not complain. I am complaining now because the process is not fair and it is not open. I intend to make it so. I will use whatever power I have as a Senator to make sure we have that kind of an open process here on the farm bill and not be asked to rubberstamp something when we do not even know what is in it. But the people that are really suffering are our farmers, along with others involved in agriculture. My farmers in Iowa and throughout the Midwest right now have to make decisions, and they are doing it in the blind--what seed to buy, what to plant, how much credit do they need, how much fertilizer they need. How can they make those decisions when they do not even know what kind of farm program we have? They should have known this and could have known this in December or earlier. We could have had a farm bill passed in December. It may not have been what I would have liked, but at least the process could have been fair and open. We owe it, I believe, to our farmers and rural communities to act in a deliberate manner. We have a 1990 farm bill that was crafted here in a bipartisan fashion. I was not one of those preferring to extend the 1990 farm bill, I must admit. But at this late hour, it seems almost inevitable that some type of extension is probably the most realistic thing we can do. We can make some changes, I believe, that both sides of the aisle would agree with, such as more planting flexibility and getting rid of base acreage restrictions. We could do that. Then farmers would at least have some idea what the rules are because they have already operated under the 1990 farm bill for the past 5 years. They would know what to expect, what to do, and there would be some certainty out there. Perhaps we would have to come back this year, or maybe even next year. Maybe we should extend it 2 years because it looks like this is going to be a short year with everybody out campaigning. Then maybe we can come back next year and craft a longer term farm bill that would take care of us for the next 5 to 7 years. But this process of saying we have to do something tonight because we are going to adjourn in the Senate for the next month and, therefore, bang, we have to do something quickly tonight--we cannot debate it, look at it, or examine it--what kind of nonsense is that? So I hope we do not have to adjourn tonight. I see no reason why we cannot be in next week. Those who want to vote to adjourn had better be ready to go back and tell their farmers, no, we thought it was more important to take time off than to debate this farm bill fully, in an open and free debate, with opportunity for amendments to it. So, Mr. President, perhaps I am just venting frustration, but I believe a lot of others share those frustrations. I hope that in some way I am representing the frustrations of the farmers I represent, because they are frustrated. They do not know what to expect. They would like to have a little certainty, too. Right now, all we are giving them is uncertainty. If we adjourn for a month tonight, they have another month of uncertainty. It is unfair and unconscionable that we would walk out of this place tonight and adjourn without having a full, fair, and open debate on amendments to a farm bill, which cannot take place in 3 hours tonight. It may take tomorrow and it might take Monday. That is fair. I do not know how many days the 1990 farm bill took. I am informed that it took 7 days. The 1985 farm bill took about the same amount of time. We had the telecom bill. How many days did that take? I think a couple of weeks. The farm bill is every bit as important to our farmers as the telecom bill is to the people in telecommunications. I do not think the farm bill needs 7 days, but at least 2 or 3 days, to debate and amend it and have final passage. I do not see why we cannot do that tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. There is no reason we cannot do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we are voting on the approval of historic telecommunications legislation that will reshape the landscape of the entire communications industry and affect every household in this country. The future success of America's economy and society is inextricably linked to the universe of telecommunications. After a decade of intense debate, this legislation rewrites the Nation's communications laws from top to bottom. The bill before us, S. 652, has come a long way and survived many battles. It is not a perfect bill in the sense that no one got everything they wanted--but I believe it will unleash a new era in telecommunications that will forever change our society and make our Nation a key driver on the information superhighway. We should applaud this amazing effort and support the conference report to S. 562. The debate over this measure has never been about the need for reform--everyone agrees that it's time. The real debate has been over how we reform our telecommunications law. The 1934 Communications Act serves our country as the cornerstone of communications law in the United States. The current regulatory structure set up by the 1934 act is based on the premise that information transmitted over wires can be easily distinguished from information transmitted through the air. So regulations were put in place to treat cable, broadcast, and telephone industries separately and for the most part, to preclude competition. However, advances in technology have brought us to a melding of telephone, video, computers, and cable. Digital technology allows all media to speak the same language. These once neat regulatory categories between telecommunications industries have started to blur and the assumptions upon which they are based are fast becoming obsolete. The essential purpose of this measure is to foster competition by removing barriers between distinct telecommunications industries and allowing everyone to compete in each other's business. But how do we increase competition while simultaneously ensuring that everyone is playing on a level playing field? Coming from a rural State, this was an especially important question for me. The overall goal of this legislation is to increase competition and I wholeheartedly believe that increased competition will benefit consumers. However, we must also recognize that telecommunications competition is limited in some areas, especially in many rural areas. The high cost of providing telecommunications to rural areas is prohibitive for most telecommunications service providers without some incentive. The 1934 communications bill understood this and adopted a principle called universal service, which was thankfully maintained and updated in S. 652. The universal service concept charged the FCC with responsibility for ``making available, so far as possible to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.'' So far we have done a heck of a job: 98 percent of American homes have television and radio, 94 percent have telephone, close to 80 percent have a VCR, while 65 percent subscribe to cable TV--96 percent have the option. Without universal service protections, advanced telecommunications will blow right by rural America creating a society of information haves and have nots. S.652 recognizes that the definition of universal service is evolving as the technology changes. S. 652 requires the FCC to establish a Federal-State joint board to recommend rules to reform the universal service system. The Joint Board will base its policies on principles which understands that access to quality, advanced telecommunications services should be provided to all Americans at a reasonable cost. I was particularly pleased to support an amendment, now in the bill before us, which guarantees that our nation's K-12 schools, libraries and rural health care providers have affordable access to advanced telecommunications services for education. As Congress moves forward on this bold legislation it is vital to provide a mechanism to assure that children and other community users have access to the information superhighway. The information superhighway must be available and affordable to all Americans through schools and libraries. And in the midst of the great battles among corporate titans like the Baby Bells and the major long distance carriers it's also important to balance the needs of the little guy. Small businesses are the backbone of economic and community life in this country. I was proud to put forward two provisions, included in this bill, which maintained the integrity of small businesses in the telecommunications revolution. My first provision amended the telecommunications bill to allow companies with under 5 percent of the market nationally, to continue offering joint marketing services. Under current law, joint marketing companies can approach a business and offer to provide them local and long distance service together, at a low rate. The business therefore gets a low cost integrated service, with the convenience of having only one vendor and one bill to deal with for all their telephone service. In an effort to prevent the big long distance companies from having a competitive advantage, the original telecommunications bill would have prohibited joint marketing. Such a prohibition would have put small company owners like Clark McLeod out of business. Mr. McLeod has been offering joint marketing services to businesses in Iowa for several years. In the process he has created thousands of jobs and filled a need for service. While I think any prohibition on joint marketing is anti-competitive, my proposal will at least allow the many innovative companies like Mr. McLeod, to continue their operations and continue to provide the services valued by so many Iowans. My other small business provision prevents the Bell Operating companies from entering into the alarm industry before a level playing field exists. The burglar and alarm industry is unique among small businesses in the telecommunications industry. It is the only information service which is competitively available in every community across the nation. This highly competitive $10 billion industry is not dominated by large companies. Instead, it is dominated by approximately 13,000 small businesses employing, on average, less than ten workers. Vigorous competition among alarm industry companies benefits consumers by providing high quality service at lower prices. Lastly, I am pleased that the Senate unanimously adopted two amendments I wrote to crack down on phone scams where enterprising swindlers have used the telephone to scam unsuspecting customers out of their hard earned money. Today, it is all too easy for telemarketing rip-off artists to profit from the current system. The operators of many of these promotions set up telephone boiler rooms for a few months, stealing thousands of dollars from innocent victims. These scam artists often prey on our senior citizens. Then they simply disappear. They take the money and run--moving on to another location to start all over again. My provision will protect consumers by providing law enforcement the authority to more quickly obtain the name, address, and physical location of businesses suspected of telemarketing fraud. It makes it easier for officers to identify and locate these operations and close them down. This change was requested by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service--our chief mail and wire fraud enforcement agency. They do a very good job and this provision gives them an important new tool to protect the elderly and other Americans from scam artists and swindlers. I also succeeded in adopting a provision to help stop another outrageous phone scam that has added hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to a family's phone bill. Worst of all, this ripoff exposes young people to dial-a-porn phone sex services--even when families take the step of placing a block on extra cost 900-number calls from their home. Companies promoting phone sex, psychic readings and other questionable services--often targeted at adolescents--use 800-numbers for calls and then patch them through to 900-number service via access codes. My amendment closes the loophole that allows these unseemly services to swindle families and restores public confidence in toll free 800-numbers. If we pass this bill today, these provisions will become the law of the land. As Microsoft giant, Bill Gates said in a recent interview with Newsweek, The revolution in communications is just beginning. It is crucial that a broad set of people participate in the debate about how this technology should be shaped. If that can be done the highway will serve the purposes users want. Then it will * * * become a reality. This bill is a starting point, a gateway to the revolution, that allows all Americans to participate. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I understand that there is a consent request to move right now to the conference report on the telecommunications bill. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, so much of the problem is that they are funded but they do not have funds for travel. Most of their investigative and audit work requires travel. So what we really have is hundreds of audit professionals, auditors sitting at their desks unable to do their jobs. Every day that they are underfunded, our taxpayers lose money. What kind of actions are not happening? Convictions, recoveries in fines relating to a wide range of abuses. In fact, the inspector general even said in her letter that they are unable to cut off people who are receiving money from Medicare even though they have been convicted. Here it is, she says: The shutdowns prevented us from excluding individuals and entities from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Providers are allowed to continue to bill even though they should be excluded due to convictions or they are abusive to patients, again, costing us millions of dollars each and every day. So I do not think there should be any disagreement on either side of the aisle with this amendment that simply ensures the inspector general efforts to combat Medicare fraud are not cut from last year's level. Again, we seem to have our priorities out of whack. The previous continuing resolution provided full-year funding to a number of programs, including, for example, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. I have no problem with that. I support that. However, this bill does not even provide last year's funding for the Office of Inspector General to go after fraud, waste, and abuse. I think that just defies common sense. I want to also, just for the Record, read a couple of examples from the semiannual report of the Office of Inspector General about the kind of cases they have gone after and what they have earned for the taxpayers. Here is a Michigan carrier that agreed to pay $27.6 million to settle a suit initiated by a former employee. The carrier was responsible for auditing, participating in hospitals' cost reports to ensure accuracy. An investigation by the OIG showed that the carrier performed inadequate cursory audits in which it disregarded hundreds of dollars in overpayments. The carrier later gave HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, fraudulent work papers in an attempt to show that complete and accurate audits had been performed. The precise amount of loss to the Government could not be determined because it would have required auditing more than 200 hospitals. As part of the settlement, the carrier agreed to pay the entire amount that HCFA had paid to perform audits over the last 4 years, approximately $13 million. Mr. President, $13 million, one case, recouped for the taxpayers of this country. And yet for $5 million, we cannot even provide for that kind of investigation. A Texas ophthalmologist signed an agreement to pay the Government $849,000 to resolve allegations of submitting false claims for reimbursement for physician and related medical services to the Medicare Program. Many of the fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare were for services not actually provided; were for services not provided as claimed or were billed at an inflated rate. This was a global settlement which also involved a criminal plea based on kickback allegations as well as submission of false claims. Mr. President, this book is full of these examples of what the Office of Inspector General has done for our taxpayers just in one-half of last year. These are the kinds of audits and investigations and criminal prosecutions that they will not be able to conduct given the reduced funding level that they have. So my amendment is very simple. It will simply provide for the same level of funding for the Office of Inspector General. That is all, just the Office of Inspector General from now through the end of this year. It will save the taxpayers literally--well, do not take my word for it. The inspector general said this could save up to $1 billion. So anywhere from probably $100 or $200 million to $1 billion just this year alone could be saved. Amendment No. 3122 (Purpose: To provide for additional funding to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have listened closely to the words of the chairman of my committee, and my friend, someone I admire very much. I realize he is in an untenable kind of position. But it is this Senator's understanding that the House is in session subject to the call of the Chair. The chairman of our committee, the Senator from Oregon, has stated that they would be in subject to the call of the Chair, but not for the purpose of working on this continuing resolution. It seems that we have been put in a position that no matter how bad the CR might be, we have to take it or else. If we have an amendment--and I do have an amendment that no one can argue does not save us money. It saves money by getting the Office of Inspector General funded so they can go after waste, fraud and abuse. I have a letter from her dated 2 days ago where we are literally losing millions of dollars every day because the Office of Inspector General has not been funded fully. I think this is not anyone's purpose. I think this is probably just an oversight of the House that they did this. I cannot imagine that, if we were to adopt that amendment, send it back to the House, they could not approve that in 30 seconds. It does not add to the debt or anything like that. In fact, it is going to save a lot of money for our taxpayers by going after waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program. So I, as much as I sympathize with the chairman of the committee, must really object to having a gun held at our heads to the point where we cannot even add an amendment that will save hundreds of millions of dollars for our taxpayers by going after the scam artists and others who are ripping off the Medicare system. I just find this startling that we cannot do that, if I understand this correctly. So, Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk. It is very straightforward. It simply assures that our efforts to stop fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare will not be cut. The funds are our main line of defense against Medicare fraud by the Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services through the end of the fiscal year at last year's level. I am told that it would add about $5.2 million to this effort. That is, in the scheme of things, not a lot of money. But what does that get us? The GAO has reported that as much as 10 percent of Medicare funds are lost each year to fraud, waste and abuse. How much money is that? Well, this year the Medicare funds are going to send out about $180 billion. So 10 percent of that is $18 billion, this year alone, lost to fraud, waste and abuse. That is over $500 for each and every Medicare beneficiary. As I said, the inspector general's activities are our main line of defense against Medicare fraud. Even at last year's funding level, they do not have enough to do the job. Now they are being cut even further. At a time when there is a discussion of major cuts to Medicare, doubling the Medicare premiums that seniors have to pay, we should not be cutting our effort to stop the fraud, waste and abuse. I think it makes common sense to stop the waste first. It is clearly documented that for every dollar we invest in the inspector general's activities, we save the taxpayers $15. That is not something in the future. That is actual money that they are recouping for us on a daily basis. Yet this bill before us cuts that program. Mr. President, I was very concerned about the possible impact that Government shutdowns and these cuts have had and is having on our national fight against Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. So last week I wrote to the inspector general, Inspector General June Gibbs Brown, to ask her what the impact was. I received her letter the day before yesterday. The findings are shocking and deserve our immediate action. In her letter she said: Dear Senator Harkin: Thank you for your recent letter expressing concern about the extent to which the critical anti-fraud and abuse activities of the Office of Inspector General . . . are suffering from the government shutdowns and under the current stop-gap spending bill. Specifically, you asked the following questions: And this is what I asked of the inspector general. [First] [w]ere major enforcement initiatives, investigations and audits suspended? [Second] [a]re fewer initiatives, investigations, and audits being initiated? What is the potential impact on Inspector General activities of being forced to operate under another short- term funding measure similar to the one currently in effect? Three questions. Here are her answers: Presentations of cases to United States attorneys for prosecution dropped from 92 in the first quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 to 51 in the first quarter of this FY 1996-- Almost a half. Criminal convictions dropped from 84 for the first quarter of last year to 36 for the same period this year. Investigative receivables--this is money that they actually brought back, money that they recouped for our taxpayers--fell from approximately $77.7 million for the first quarter of last year to about $30.8 million for the same period this year. Recoveries are down more than 50 percent; 60 percent of ongoing and plant audits will be stopped or reduced if these cuts remain in place. Last year, Mr. President, these audits saved over $5.5 billion. So the losses to Medicare and taxpayers from the reduction in audits could be in the billions. There is one other point in her letter. The Inspector General said that considering the program savings generated in past years as a result of their reports, as much as $1 billion could be lost from the drop in program inspections alone this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of the letter from the inspector general dated January 24.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for his kindness. He did raise one question about this--it is the first time it has been raised in six tries; that is so. I have been on this issue for several years, formally as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and as ranking member now with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, as chairman, who has been very supportive in all of our efforts to go after waste, fraud and abuse. I must say I had no idea that the reduced level of funding for the Office of Inspector General would have the kind of impact it has had. I must also be frank. I thought before Christmas we would have settled this. It was not. I thought it would be settled soon after. It was not. It is going from month to month to month, and you have to stop and say, What is happening? That is what precipitated my letter to the inspector general a couple weeks ago. I wanted to know if they had any data to see what was happening. They did. They have the data from October, November and December of this fiscal year, the first quarter, compared to last year. It is really shocking what is happening because they do not have adequate funding to recoup money for taxpayers. I am going on what the inspector general said in her letter. I just indicate to the Senator from Oregon, that was the only reason I had not raised it before, because I had no idea it was as bad as it is. That is why I sent the letter. Now is the time to get the money in to stop this bleeding of the Medicare money. Lastly, I inquire of the Chair, the Senator from Oregon has stated that this is in violation of the Budget Act and it goes over the allocation. It is this Senator's understanding that the whole CR, the whole continuing resolution, is in violation of the Budget Act. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is the underlying continuing resolution in violation of the Budget Act?

Mr. HARKIN. Might the Senator inquire as to how long? I do not want to tie this up. In conversations with the Parliamentarian of the Senate earlier this afternoon, I asked the Parliamentarian that question: If, in fact, the CR was subject to a point of order and if it violated the Budget Act. I was told it was, unless I misunderstood the Parliamentarian.

Mr. HARKIN. I wonder how many Senators know that the underlying continuing resolution is, itself, in violation of the Budget Act. I do not intend to raise a point of order. I could, within my legitimate rights, raise a point of order against the entire continuing resolution. I do not want to do that. I also do not want to be told that this amendment that I am offering, which by any accounting will save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, cannot be accepted because it is in violation of the Budget Act, when the entire continuing resolution is in violation of the Budget Act. I do not see my distinguished chairman on the floor. Again, with all due respect, I do not know how one can argue that my amendment should not be adopted because it violates--and a point of order raised against it, when it truly saves the taxpayers a lot of money, but then go right ahead and vote for the continuing resolution which also is in violation of the Budget Act. I want the Record to show that. Again, I am not here to throw a bomb or a handgrenade or to blow this thing up. If I was, I could raise a point of order against the continuing resolution and there would have to be 60 votes to pass it. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. That is not my object. My object is to try to save the taxpayers some money, to make sure that the Office of Inspector General is funded, not at any increased level, just at last year's level. There is a bleeding going on every day, I tell my colleagues. There is a bleeding going on every day in Medicare. Millions of dollars are lost every day. It is the inspector general that is out there on the front lines stopping it and recouping real dollars for our taxpayers. We can close our eyes if we want. We can say it does not amount to a heck of a lot of money. As I pointed out, the inspector general said up to maybe $1 billion will be lost if they are not at least funded at last year's level. We are talking about $5 million to keep the Office of Inspector General going. I say again, Mr. President, I am not here to disrupt, but I am here trying my level best, as I have for a long time, to cut at the waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. The main agent we have to do that is the inspector general's office. I do not cast any aspersions on what the House did. I do not accuse them of anything other than perhaps oversight. I cannot believe they would not accept this. I think it was simply an oversight. Because of that, I believe if the Senate were to adopt this, send it back to the House--as I said, they are in session subject to the call of the Chair--I bet there would not be a House Member object to it. How could they possibly object to something like this? And then send it to the President and save our taxpayers some of their money. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise on a matter of great concern to me and all those who are concerned about reducing nuclear tensions in the world, who are concerned about nonproliferation, and who are in favor of and concerned about a comprehensive test ban treaty. I might point out that in the State of the Union Message last Tuesday, President Clinton said that one of the things he wanted to accomplish was a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Most experts agree that nowhere on Earth is the potential for a nuclear confrontation more real today than on the Indian subcontinent. Recent news has only served to heighten those concerns. According to an article in the December 15, 1995, issue of the New York Times, ``U.S. intelligence experts suspect that India may be preparing for its first nuclear test since 1974.'' Needless to say, Mr. President, this is alarming news and it cannot be taken lightly. Mr. President, this is the article from the New York Times, Friday, December 15: ``U.S. Suspects India Prepares To Conduct Nuclear Test.'' The day after that, on December 16--I might add in this article of December 15, the Indian spokesman said that that is not what it was. He said that these were army exercises whose ``movements have been absurdly misinterpreted.'' That was on December 15. On December 16, the next day, a story in the New York Times: ``India Denies Atom-Test Plan But Then Turns Ambiguous.'' It went on to say that the Indian Government denied it was planning its first nuclear test, and a few hours later recast its position to describe as ``highly speculative'' a report in the New York Times that quoted American intelligence experts as saying they suspected an Indian test was being prepared. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. India has denied but Indian officials have failed to state clearly and categorically that India will refrain from testing. I fear, and many others fear, if India proceeds with its testing program then Pakistan will feel obligated for their own security reasons to follow suit. This deadly game of chicken would almost certainly escalate. To make matters even more troubling, reports today indicate that international negotiations in Geneva on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty are being severely complicated, perhaps even undermined, by India's insistence to link a test ban with total nuclear disarmament. Mr. President, India must be reminded that a nuclear test will trigger severe economic sanctions. U.S. military and economic aid, U.S. support for loans by the World Bank and other multilateral institutions, and export licenses, would all be suspended. Mr. President, it is time for both India and Pakistan to pull back from a nuclear collision course. It is time to end the nuclear saber- rattling and begin real talks at the negotiating table. To that end, Mr. President, I commend the recent statement by Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto expressing Pakistan's willingness to meet with India anywhere in the world at any time to ensure that what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not happen in Pakistan or India. I hope Indian officials take up her offer. It is the right thing to do. The fact is that in the two decades since India's first nuclear weapons test, Pakistan has initiated at least eight proposals to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons in that region. Most recently, it proposed the creation of a missile-free zone in all of South Asia. Each time, India has resisted these proposals. Mr. President, I had a chart prepared which is the Pakistani proposals that they have provided, that they have produced over the years, trying to seek an accommodation, trying to keep nuclear weapons from being produced in their area. I might just briefly go through those. First, to establish a nuclear weapons free-zone in South Asia, proposed in 1974; second, to issue a joint Indo-Pakistan declaration renouncing the acquisition and manufacture of nuclear weapons, proposed in 1978; to have mutual inspections by India and Pakistan of nuclear facilities, proposed in 1979; for simultaneous adherence to NPT by India and Pakistan, proposed in 1979; to endorse a simultaneous acceptance of full-scope international atomic energy agency safeguards, proposed in 1979; for agreement on a bilateral or regional nuclear test ban treaty, proposed in 1987; to commence a multilateral conference on the question of nuclear proliferation in South Asia, proposed in 1991; and to create a missile-free zone in all of South Asia, proposed in 1993. These are the steps that Pakistan has proposed over the years to reduce the level of tensions, to stop the production of nuclear weapons in that area. Each time that they have proposed this, India has resisted these proposals. Mr. President, since the end of the cold war, solving nuclear tensions in the Indian subcontinent has been a leading nonproliferation goal of the United States. At best, this senseless arms race would squander billions of dollars and decrease security in the region and beyond. For this reason I call on my colleagues to join me in urging India to clearly state that it will refrain from nuclear testing. Furthermore, I call on the administration to support efforts to bring both India and Pakistan together for negotiations to eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation in that region once and for all. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appears in the Chicago Tribune, Sunday, January 7, 1996, entitled ``The Nuclear Danger In South Asia.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have several articles from newspapers around the country talking about the problem of nuclear proliferation in that part of the world, talking about the indications that India may be ready to conduct a nuclear test. I ask unanimous consent that the various articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. President, it is time to reduce the tensions in that area. The best way to do that is to use our good offices, the administration, and also to let our voices be heard so that our friends in India--and I say that forthrightly; India is not an enemy of ours. They are a friend of ours. We have relations with India. But they have to understand the gravity of this situation. They have to understand that if they would clearly state that they will not conduct nuclear testing, how much further that would advance the cause of peace and reduce the tensions in that area. Perhaps then we can get about bringing both India and Pakistan together, to stall the problems that we have in Kashmir, where thousands of innocent people are losing their lives. It need not be that way. We can solve these problems. But India must first renounce the use of nuclear weapons and must first state very clearly that they are not going to conduct nuclear testing. With that out of the road, and I believe the pathway would be clear for this administration and for other governments to get India and Pakistan together to solve the outstanding problems that continue to engulf the entire area.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have another matter on which I wish to speak, but I want to thank the Senator from Nebraska for bringing this issue to the floor. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we do not have a farm bill this year. We passed a farm bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was not what I wanted. But we had our votes, we debated it. Yet, we never brought it on the Senate floor to debate and vote on it. Never. Here it is, almost February 1996, and farmers in our area do not know what to do, how much credit to apply for, or what seed to buy, or what kind of program we are going to have this year. Then listening to the Senator from Nebraska repeat the rapid changes in the national president, or chairman, whatever his position is, of the Farm Bureau, is disconcerting at best. The Senator from Nebraska, if I understand this right, said that as recently as a month ago, the leader of the Farm Bureau was saying in a letter that was written publicly, I guess, that the Farm Bureau was in favor of a farm program that would have some connection between commodity programs and support prices, and that they were in favor of a program that would support farmers in years when prices were low, but not necessarily when prices are high. Was that just a month ago, I ask the Senator?

Mr. HARKIN. I add, on the Agriculture Committee last summer--and I forget the exact date--the same individual, the president of the American Farm Bureau, was before our committee. Then we were talking about the budget, of which the distinguished Senator from Nebraska knows a lot, since he is a ranking member on our Budget Committee. I was asking him about the budget. I said that the Clinton budget cuts about--I think at that time it was around $4 billion, over a period, from agriculture, and I think the House budget cut something like $13 billion or $14 billion from agriculture. I asked him, ``Given those two options, which would you prefer? Which would the Farm Bureau be for?'' He said they would prefer the Clinton budget. Now it seems like there is another big turnaround where they want this so-called freedom to farm bill, which, as the Senator said, is really the farm welfare bill. I do not know how anyone could ask us to pass a bill that would give a Government check to a farmer when prices were extremely high in the marketplace. But that is what they are asking for. It is a siren song for farmers. If they buy into that, in a few years there will not be any farm program or any farm bill at all to protect them when prices are low. I thank the Senator for bringing this up.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I yield.