Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wish to ask the Senator a question. There are a number of issues about the Senator's bill that bothers me. One is how tightly it is drawn and it affords no leeway whatsoever for certain special cases. We talked about the health of the mother. A woman who came to see me some time ago--I do not know if this case is atypical, but I know it happened to one person. I know it is happening to others. She and her husband had been trying to have children. She became pregnant. She found out the child's--basically the brain was outside the head.

Mr. HARKIN. I do not know exactly what that all means. Anyway, I do know she was told by her doctor that there was a possibility--he did not know how remote--but there was a distinct possibility that if she carried this child to term, which was going to die right away, that because of other complications she had, she might not be able to have other children. I am telling you this is what was told----

Mr. HARKIN. I would prefer we stick with Roe v. Wade which would allow my daughter to go to a hospital and to have a doctor perform a procedure on her that in the doctor's best judgment was the safest for her. If I can just respond further, if the doctor decided this type of procedure was safer than a cesarean section, for example, which I would submit to my friend from Pennsylvania is every bit as gruesome if you would like to describe it, but it is up to the doctor to decide what is the safest procedure. That is what I would want my daughter to have, so that is why I have my amendment on Roe v. Wade.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield another 5 minutes to the Senator from California. Is the Senator familiar with the outcome of that vote? That vote at that time--I remember it precisely--was 51 to 47. Two people who are not here had announced they were opposed to it, so it was 51 to 49. By 2 votes, the Senate--49 Senators said Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That is how close we are here. That is why the people of this country ought to recognize that is what this debate is about--getting at Roe v. Wade; nothing more, nothing less. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I further ask the Senator, would she concur in this view, that perhaps what this is all about is really not about a procedure but it really is about fundamentally getting at Roe v. Wade? I say that to my friend from California because 4 years ago when this came up, this Senator along with the Senator from California offered the same amendment. It said that Roe v. Wade--we recognize it as the law of the land and it should not be overturned.

Mr. HARKIN. That is exactly right. I say again to the Senator, when it is defined to people, both men and women, what Roe v. Wade really does in terms of the first 3 months and then after that what the State can do, but with exceptions for life and health of the mother, as the Senator so rightfully pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the American people say yes, that ought to inure to the individual and not to the Government.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for her stalwart support for all the years I have known her, for the principles and the law of Roe v. Wade, to ensure that the women of America have the right to choose. I thank her for her stalwart support, and I thank her for her comments this afternoon on behalf of this amendment I have offered. I ask the Senator this question. We heard from our friend from Pennsylvania about certain polls that were taken about a certain procedure and this and that. But this amendment is about Roe v. Wade. Is the Senator familiar with polls taken in this country from women about whether or not they would support keeping Roe v. Wade or overturning Roe v. Wade? Is the Senator familiar with some of those polls?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself a couple minutes, and then I will close up. I know we have some people who need to vote here shortly. Madam President, let us be clear about one thing. The amendment I have offered is, I think, as straightforward in its approach as Roe v. Wade is in its decision; that is, it simply just states Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned. That is what we are saying on this amendment. I have not gotten much into the debate on the underlying bill itself. I may later on. I have left that to others. I just feel very strongly that in all the smoke and fog and haze and debate about this procedure and that procedure, and all of the kinds of philosophical debates that are being made--and some of them are very good. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has been very good about engaging in discussions on the floor. Maybe later on I will get into a little more philosophical debate with him on some of these things. But this amendment simply is about Roe v. Wade. That is all this amendment is. It is for us to express ourselves, to express ourselves clearly and unequivocally that the Senate believes Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned. Let us send a signal to the women of this country that we are not going to turn the clock back, we are not going to turn the clock back to what Senator Boxer from California said: the dark days when they went to back alleys. If my daughter, God forbid, ever found herself in a position like that, as I said earlier, yes, I would want her to go to the best hospital, have a doctor, have a good obstetrician, and not be forced into a back alley. I want it legal. That is what Roe v. Wade is about, and that is what this amendment is about: to keep it safe, legal, and, yes, rare in the United States. I yield back my time. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards and Senator Cantwell both be added as cosponsors, and Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor, and Senator Kerry.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered basically expresses the sense of the Senate in support of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. With all of the legislation that continues to come up and chip away at Roe v. Wade, I decided it was important for us in the Senate to go on record that this historic decision was appropriate and should not be overturned. I let the clerk read the full text of the amendment because it is very short and to the point. I offered this amendment 4 years ago on similar legislation that came before this body. The disposition of that amendment at that time, if I am not mistaken, was 51 to 47 in passage. There were some who were concerned about a couple of the findings. The difference between this amendment and the one I offered 4 years ago is basically two findings have been removed and the only findings left are just the findings that pertain only to Roe v. Wade. This amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Basically, it puts us on record of saying the decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, was appropriate and should not be overturned. I believe it is important that we remind ourselves about this decision as we get into the debate on this so-called partial-birth abortion--especially when this bill changes. That is different than what it was 4 years ago, as we try to parse words, trying to anticipate every medical procedure that might be performed by a doctor, getting into issues this Senator does not believe we are adequately prepared or equipped to do in terms of knowledge of all of the ramifications of certain medical procedures. I want to make sure with all of this going on that we send a strong signal to the women of this country that Roe v. Wade is appropriate, it was a good decision, and it is not going to be overturned. I assume maybe there are those in this body who want to see it overturned. I can accept that as their opinion and their view, but I think it is important for people to know where we stand on that decision. As we all know, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade as a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless the woman's life was at stake. The case had been filed by Jane Roe, an unmarried woman, who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy. Siding with Roe, the Court struck down the Texas law. In its ruling, the Court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy ``is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' But the decision also set some rules. The Court recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute, and that any State has a valid interest in safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life. A State's interest in ``potential life'' is not compelling, the Court said, until viability, the point in pregnancy in which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. A State may, but is not required, to prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman's life or her health. I add that for emphasis, ``or her health.'' This is what my resolution is all about: To say that we agree that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and it should not be overturned. The constitutional right to a private decision in this matter is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. Before the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that each year 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion, despite the known hazards of frightening trips to dangerous locations in strange parts of town; of whiskey as an anesthetic; of ``doctors'' who were often marginal or unlicensed practitioners, sometimes alcoholic, sometimes sexually abusive; unsanitary conditions; incompetent treatment; hemorrhage; disfiguration and death. By invalidating laws that forced women to resort to back-alley abortion; Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives. Only 10 pieces of legislation were introduced in either the House or Senate before the Roe decision. But in the 30 years since the ruling, more than 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced. The majority of these bills sought to restrict a womans right to choose. Unfortunately, what is often lost in the rhetoric and in some of those proposals--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. Roe not only established a woman's reproductive freedom, it was also central to women's continued progress toward full and equal participation in American life. In the 26 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's achievements have reached a higher level. As the Supreme Court observed in 1992: The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. As I have said on many occasions in the past, going back almost 20 years, I do not believe that any abortion is desirable. I do not think anyone does. As a father, I have struggled with this issue many times in the past. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to insist that my personal views be the law of the land, just as I do not think the personal views of the Senator from Pennsylvania, however strong he may hold them, ought to be the law of the land. So what should Congress do? If we are truly interested in both maintaining a woman's constitutional right to control her own reproductive life, and at the same time trying to limit the number of abortions in our society, there is action we can take. We can increase funding for family planning. Try getting that through on the floor of the Senate. We can increase funding for abstinence-only education. We have done some of that. We can mandate insurance coverage for contraception. We still need to do that. We do not, but we should mandate it. We can provide more support for contraception research. Unfortunately, the Senate yesterday decided not to take these steps that could reduce the number of abortions. That was the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe it would establish the one important principle that we should agree on--that we will not strip away a woman's fundamental right to choose, and that is what this amendment does. Further, I quote from Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in Casey: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. I am going to read that again because it is such a profound statement: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State. I think that is the essence of this issue, whether we will use the heavy hand of the State to enforce certain individuals' concepts of when life begins, how life begins, when a person can have an abortion, when a person cannot. Yes, it is true, people are divided on this issue. Some people are uncertain about it. I quarrel with myself all the time about it, because it is as multifaceted as there are numbers of humans on the face of the Earth. I would not sit in judgment on any person who would choose to have an abortion, especially a woman who went through the terrifying, agonizing, and soul-wrenching procedures of having a late-term abortion because her health or her life is in danger. That must be one of the most soul-wrenching experiences a person can go through. I just do not understand how we can be so presumptuous to think that we in the Senate can answer each one of those individual cases, with all the different facets that may be involved, and yet that is what some in the Senate believe the Senate and the Congress should do. No, I do not want to sit in judgment on that, and I do not believe any of us ought to. That is why, again, I think it is particularly important that we cut through all the folderol that surrounds this issue and get to the heart of it, which is Roe v. Wade. This is the heart of what we are talking about. There are those who want to come along and change it and make it more complex, indecipherable, benefiting maybe one person one way, adding to the detriment of another person another way, so that we are right back where we were before Roe v. Wade was decided. I believe very strongly that we need to express ourselves on this sense of the Senate resolution. I appreciate the agreement from the manager of the bill and our majority whip to have an up-or-down rollcall vote. I believe it is that important, and I appreciate their willingness to have that up-or-down vote. I am sure I will have more to say later on. I believe there are 2 \1/ 2\ hours of time divided equally, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time have I consumed?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue that has arisen out of a technical problem in the farm bill Congress passed last year. Section 10806(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by placing limitations on the use of the term ``ginseng'' as the common or usual name for plants classified within the genus Panax. The purpose of this provision was to address confusion that had arisen from products derived from different plants being labeled as ``Siberian ginseng'', and the like. However, I must note that the use of the term ``ginseng'' for plants classified in a genus other than Panax was not illegal under Federal labeling laws in place prior to the passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. In these types of situations where a labeling change is proposed, the Food and Drug Administration recognizes that, in order to assure an orderly and economical industry adjustment to new labeling requirements, a sufficient lead time is necessary to permit planning for the use of existing label inventories and the development of new labeling materials. Unfortunately, the ginseng provision Congress included in the farm bill lacked a specific effective date that would have allowed FDA's typical transition period to occur. As one of the lead authors of the farm bill, and as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee at the time, I want to be clear this was simply an oversight on the part of the Senate and House in writing that portion of the farm bill that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. I proposed to correct this omission in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for FY 2003, PL 108-7, and supply an effective date of May 13, 2003 for Section 10806(b) Ginseng Labeling of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Unfortunately, in the rush to complete work on that bill, the provision was left out even though no one had any objections to it. Because it is important to address this as soon as possible, I want my colleagues to know that I plan to offer my amendment to supply an effective date for the ginseng provision again, either on the supplemental legislation we are likely to receive soon or other legislation moving on the floor of the Senate. It is my hope we can more quickly to correct this oversight.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Sure, I will yield for a question, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator, is this the guy who went to get his leg amputated?

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I have read about them and heard about them--that there may be some people in and out, or some who may have come in. The most I have heard is the one I think the Senator is talking about, but I think he came there to get his leg fixed or something. No doubt he was well connected with al-Qaida. But I say to my friend from Utah, the Government of Iraq said they cannot find this guy. Well, our people have said it is ridiculous; of course, you can find him. Well, we cannot find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We have more spy satellites and listening equipment than Iraq ever dreamed of having. I don't know whether this guy is there or not. There have been some in and out of Iraq. Again, it is very tenuous as to whether or not there are any connections. I am sure the Senator from Utah also knows that there has been a longstanding feud between Osama bin Laden and his fundamentalists and the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. I say a pox on both their houses. But the fact is, in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and those fundamentalists, Saddam Hussein is a secular leader, not a true Islamist. What they have always wanted was to get rid of Saddam Hussein to put in power a religious government in Iraq. So there never has been, in all the briefings I have ever had, any love lost between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida network. They just have different ideologies and a different way of approaching how they should govern. So, again, they have been trying to make these links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and they have never done it. I say to my friend from Utah, there is an interesting piece in the Sunday Washington Post. When they caught Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the most dangerous men in al-Qaida, they captured him in Pakistan. On page A-26, there was a picture of all the high-value targets, those who have been involved with al-Qaida. No. 1 is Osama bin Laden. And then there is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the one they just caught. Then there is Abu Zubaida, still at large. Others have died or have been captured. What is interesting about all of this--tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, is Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. Zawahiri is Egyptian. Saif Al-Adil is Egyptian. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is Pakistani. Then down here is a Jordanian, a Palestinian, a Saudi, a Yemeni, an Indonesian, a Kuwaiti, and an Egyptian. One thing kind of leaps out at you: Not one of them is an Iraqi. You would think that if Iraq were so closely tied in with al-Qaida, they might have some operatives in there. Not one is Iraqi. So we are going to go kill a lot of innocent Iraqis, innocent civilians, women and children. Where are the Iraqis in that lineup? You would think, with that list, we would go to war against Egypt. Look at all the Egyptians--or even the Saudis. Look at all the people who are in tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 of the high-value targets, and more than just a few are Saudis. Maybe that ought to be the target of our invasion. After all, we know it has been the Saudis who, with their deep pockets, have been funding the fundamentalists in their efforts in that part of the world. It is the Saudis, with their deep pockets, who have been buying and paying for Al-Jazeera television with all of the inflammatory tirades against the United States and Israel that come across that television station. Not Iraq. It wasn't Saddam Hussein paying for that. It was the Saudis paying for it. So over the weekend we have the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, perhaps, as they say, the brains behind al-Qaida, and the brains behind September 11--the operations chief and mastermind. That is a great capture. I applaud the FBI agents, CIA agents, whoever was involved in tracking this guy down and getting him. They did a great job, and I hope they get whatever commendations and medals that is appropriate for that. But there is someone else that also helped capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and that is the Government of Pakistan. I have taken this floor many times in the past several years to talk about our relations with Pakistan and how through the years, clear back to the founding of Pakistan as a nation, they have been on our side in every war. There isn't one conflict in the world that the U.S. has been involved in that the Pakistani Government and troops have not been on our side. Even in Haiti we had Pakistani soldiers with us. In Korea. In Vietnam. In the gulf war in 1991, Pakistan was there with us. Every single time that we have had a capture and a turnover to us of a terrorist, it has been Pakistan that has helped us. The first bombers at the World Trade Center caught--almost a dozen years ago now--were turned over to us by Pakistan. The shooter at the CIA in the mid-1990s who killed so many people escaped and went to Pakistan. Pakistan caught him and turned him over to us. The bombers of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were caught by Pakistan and turned over to us. And now this is the latest in a long string of terrorists who have killed Americans here at home and abroad. Here is the latest. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured in Pakistan. Yes, with the help of our FBI and CIA, and I don't know what other intelligence agencies, but it mentions the FBI here, but also with the help of the Pakistani Government. It could not have happened unless President Musharraf and others came to our aid and assistance to capture this guy. Yet how do we treat Pakistani Americans? So many Pakistani Americans who are in this country, who have been working, many have children who are Americans, have provided health care in our country in many cases and in many situations. They are university professors, businesses entrepreneurs all over America. Yet we have told them they have to march into INS and get fingerprinted and do all this within a month. In other words, it is treating Pakistani Americans as if they are part of this network of Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Jordanians, and everybody else. One might find a Pakistani in there someplace, I do not know. The Pakistanis have always helped us out, and they are continuing to help us out today. We need to help them to combat terrorism in their own country. After the war in Afghanistan was over, there were over a million refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They now think it is probably between 1 and 2 million. We provided little--I can almost say no help to the Pakistanis to take care of these refugees, to help them get resettled, and, as far as I know, we are not doing anything to help them now to get back into Afghanistan to resettle. They remain a burden on the Pakistani Government. It makes one wonder sometimes just what our response is going to be if, in fact, we do have a war in Iraq and we have an occupation, when we see how we have treated the Pakistanis for all these years. There were a couple other interesting events this weekend. The Iraqi Government has continued to destroy some of the Al-Samoud missiles. I think it is up to 10 now. They said they destroyed six more missiles. There is an interesting quote in the paper this morning. It said: ``If it turns out at an early stage this month that America is not going to a legal way, then why should we continue?'' Saddam Hussein's scientific adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, said Sunday. In other words, what he is saying is--I read the story--we are willing to destroy the missiles, it takes time, but if the United States is going to commit war on us anyway, why should we? A Senior U.S. official-- There is always one of those-- said today the White House remained unimpressed with Iraq's move. ``The standard for cooperation demanded by U.N. Resolution 1441 is full and immediate, not grudging and late,'' the official said. The resolution approved last fall authorized a new round of weapons inspections in Iraq. You wonder sometimes what the rush to judgment is. If we can continue with more inspectors and Iraq continues to destroy the missiles, and to continue the containment policy on Saddam Hussein, isn't that what we want? There is another unnamed military source that says these missiles have questionable accuracy anyway. I am told they went over the line by 26 miles. It was 100 kilometers, and they went over by 26 miles. I had a conversation this weekend with someone who said: These missiles could be used to hit Israel or hit Europe or maybe even America. That is not the case at all. They went 26 miles over the line. Again, it was more than what was allowed and they should be destroyed and they are being destroyed. I guess the point I am making is why are we in such a rush to say that is not enough; we are going to go to war anyway? As I said at the beginning of my remarks, every time I listen to Mr. Wolfowitz, it seems as if this man has made up his mind: We are going to war no matter what, unless, as I read between the lines of what he is saying, someone assassinates Saddam Hussein and they set up a government and invite us in to run operations, then maybe we will not go to war. That seems to me about the only scenario that would keep a war from happening, according to Mr. Wolfowitz and those around him. The other important event that happened this weekend was the vote in the Turkish Parliament. The vote was close. We lobbied heavily. We put up, I do not know, I am told $15 billion or $26 billion--take your pick--to get the Turkish Government to allow us to use their territory for our troops, for loading troops, the provisioning of troops, and the movement of troops across Turkish national territory to Iraq. Even with that, the Parliament turned it down. It was a close vote, but they turned it down. Then I saw a poll--you can get a lot of information off the Web on the weekend when you are working on these issues--there was a poll taken in Turkey. I do not know, I have no knowledge of how accurate this poll is or who took the poll, but it was a public opinion poll that showed that 94 percent of Turkey's citizens were opposed to the war in Iraq--94 percent. Even if the poll is off a little bit, one can understand why the Turkish Parliament was so reticent even in the face of billions of dollars of U.S. money pouring in. Someone said on the floor last week, this is not the coalition of the willing; it is the coalition of the bought confronting Iraq. If we have to go to those measures, $26 billion is what I was told--I stand corrected if that is not right. Even if it is $15 billion or someplace in between, we are not funding education, we have a problem in Medicare, our deficits are going out of sight, but somehow we have $26 billion to give to Turkey to allow our troops to go across their territory. That should raise some real questions as to what is happening here. Lastly, one has to question what is it we are about underneath it all? Again, I read from a speech that President Bush gave last week to the American Enterprise Institute and some of the comments that were made regarding that issue. President Bush said in his speech that we are going to have an Iraqi Government that will be representative of the people and that we would ensure that happened. I went back because I wanted to check to make sure this was official, so I looked at the White House document that was sent to us on January 20, 2003. It is the report from the President required by the Iraqi resolution that was passed by Congress last fall. Of course, it was supposed to have been in in 60 days. It was just another 30 days overdue. I read it over. There is an interesting part in the report that President Bush signed and sent to us. I will venture to say that not many Senators have read this report. But it is called the ``Future of Iraq.'' It is in the report of the President sent to us on January 20. I am going to quote from it. It says: Should it become necessary for the United States and coalition armed forces to take military action against Iraq, the United States, together with its coalition partners-- Who are getting fewer and fewer, by the way-- will play a role in helping to meet the humanitarian, reconstruction, and administrative challenges facing the country in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. . . .We will work to transfer authority as soon as practical to the Iraqis themselves, initially in an advisory role. . . .The U.S. is fully committed to stay as long as necessary to fulfill these responsibilities, but is equally committed to leave as soon as the Iraqi people are in a position to carry out these responsibilities themselves. Interesting. ``The U.S. is fully committed''--I do not remember us ever having a debate about that commitment, that we are committed to stay as long as necessary to fulfill these responsibilities, but are equally committed to leave as soon as the Iraqi people are in a position to carry out these responsibilities themselves. The question is: Who decides that? Who decides when the Iraqi people are in a position to carry out these responsibilities themselves? There is a quote in the paper from Youssef Ibrahim from the Council on Foreign Relations. He said: I think Arabs almost without exception would welcome more democracy and more freedom of expression and to be liberated from the police states they all--in one form or another--live under. Mr. Ibrahim goes on: It does not follow that they would trust America to do this for them. The view over there is totally different from the view expressed here. Critics also warn that the Bush administration must overcome a credibility gap borne of long memories and unpopular U.S. policies. University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami warned that an invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation by United States-led forces would feed an image of United States imperialism and undermine the very goals the administration has set. Keep in mind, if we do, in fact, go to war in Iraq and occupy Iraq and set up this military type of government for however long we want to, it will be the first time ever that the United States has occupied an Arab country, the first time ever that we will be seen by the Arabs as occupiers, as establishing some kind of colonial power in the Arab world. And I think that is going to have severe ramifications. Army Chief of staff Shinseki told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to secure postwar Iraq. Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful, he said. Well, I wonder how much help we will get. Mr. Wolfowitz is quoted as saying: If, when Iraq is liberated, it can come up with a representative government that treats its people decently, I think it can have significant effects throughout the Middle East. David Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute, said they make it look like a no-brainer. Put me down as a skeptic. Americans are in such a hurry. The people in the region are not. They are worried that they are jumping over a precipice. By one estimate, 65 million adults in the Middle East cannot read or write, 14 million are unemployed, and 10 million school-aged children are not enrolled in class. When I listen to Mr. Wolfowitz and I read the report from President Bush of January 20--I have not seen the movie yet, but I have read the book a couple of times, and I looked at it again this weekend, ``The Quiet American'' by Graham Greene. You read that and you think about how we got into Vietnam--the same kind of thing. We were going to build a democracy in Vietnam. We were going to end all this internal fighting and take care of the north, and we were going to set up democratic forms of government. That was the first, and then there were several others that followed. How many thousands of Americans lost their lives there? What did it do to our country, for a generation? Now one goes to Vietnam and we have diplomatic relations. When we look at what is happening in Vietnam, we have to say, what was it all about? It was really about the misguided adventurism of, yes, well- meaning people in this country--I have no doubt that they meant well-- to put a pax Americana, sort of a stamp of America, on a country in Southeast Asia, to set up a country that would look like us, mirror us. We were going to do it through military force. I am sorry, it did not happen then, and it is not going to happen in Iraq. It may happen in Iraq at some point. We can encourage that. But it is not going to come about through a war that is going to kill countless civilians through the establishment of a military occupation and through us trying to impose upon the Iraqis our sense of what good government is. If only that were true. But history shows it is not. We keep hearing from Mr. Wolfowitz and others what a grave threat Saddam Hussein is to us. They believe the war in Iraq will be quick, maybe 2 or 3 weeks and it will be over with. And that is probably true. I have no doubt that could possibly be true. Then one has to ask, if that is the case, are they really that big a threat? Iraq has no navy. It has no air force to speak of. Its military is really in shambles. What kind of a threat are they, especially if we can keep inspectors there? The other thing I wanted to check on was: Is there a limit on the number of inspectors U.N. Resolution 1441 permits? Or any previous resolution? Was there any limit by the surrender resolution in 1991 which first started the inspections? And the answer is no. There is no limit on the number of inspectors that the United Nations is allowed to have in Iraq. So why have 100? Why do we not have 500? Why do we not have 1,000 inspectors, duly trained and qualified, all over that country? Saddam Hussein cannot say, no, that is not allowed, because it is allowed. I submit, those 1,000 or 500 inspectors fully trained in Iraq, even if it takes the next 5 years, is cheaper monetarily than what the war is going to cost us, and certainly cheaper in terms of the loss of human life, both American lives and innocent lives in Iraq. Plus, I believe through that process we will have the support and the admiration of other Arab countries. A war in Iraq, I believe, will give the backup to the terrorists who are out there. I am not so naive to think that there are not terrorists even yet in this country, and in other parts of the world, who want to do us in. They are there, but it seems like right now they do not have a backup. There is not much of a backup. We are tearing up the network with the recent capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan. We are destroying this network, and we should keep at it, too. But a war in Iraq then will give, I think, people in the Arab world who today are not feeling us any ill, will give them the reasons to support monetarily, through encouragement, through processors, those terrorists who are out there. It is one thing to be a terrorist by yourself someplace; it is another thing to be a terrorist backed up, backed up, and backed up, like countless other people who are willing to give money and support and intelligence to help in your terrorist activities. To me, that is what could happen if we go to war in Iraq. Lastly, the civilian causalities. I remember the pictures that came back from 1991 after the war in Kuwait against the Iraqi Army--tanks, trucks, vehicles bombed and burned out, bodies lying all over in the desert. That did not provoke any outpouring of ill-will in the Arab world. It did not provoke any outpouring of a sentiment that somehow all of those people who were killed were somehow innocent. They were not. These were soldiers. These were Iraqi troops, used to invade and plunder Kuwait. It will be different this time. This time it is not just the Iraqi Army. It will be innocent men and women in Baghdad who will get killed. And those are the pictures that will go around the Arab world. If we are just confronting the Iraqi Army, that is one thing. But with all the cruise missiles and the bombing and everything else that will go on in Baghdad, cruise missiles are very accurate, but sometimes they go astray and sometimes people are not where they are supposed to be. Sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is what will happen, the image of innocent women and children killed by the might of the American military in Baghdad. That is why the best course of action is to continue the inspections, and if we need to, make 500 inspections, make 1,000 inspections. And then continue the program: planned destruction of weapons of mass destruction and others that Saddam Hussein now possesses in his arsenal. It may take more than a week, it may take more than a month, it may take 6 months or a year or 2 years or 4 or 5 years. The article asked, what is the hurry? If it means less loss of human life, and it will certainly cost a lot less, it seems to me that would be the wise course of action. We have a gang down there at the White House, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Poindexter--do these names conjure up memories of the past? Sure does. A lot of the misguided adventures we got into in the 1980s--in Iran, in Central America, places like that--all these names kept popping up at that time because they were all involved in the misguided adventures. Now they got the adventure that will save us all, it will save America in the future--war in Iraq. And occupy Iraq with several hundred thousand troops, stay there as long as necessary to set up a government that somehow looks like ours. I close my remarks by saying these people ought to go visit Vietnam. I have, several years ago, to find out how the people are getting along there. They seem to be getting along fine. I still may not approve of the kind of government they have. But the people seem to be getting along just fine. Saigon is bustling, Hanoi is bustling, the tourist industry is going up, manufacturing is going up. Again, it might not be the mirror image of our kind of government, but they seem to be doing all right. So go visit Vietnam, and then go down to this wall down on The Mall and remember the misguided adventures of well-meaning politicians of the past before we commit our military to a massive invasion of Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. He was injured in Afghanistan. I don't remember the name.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there are a couple things I will speak about during this period of time: One, I do want to address myself to the issue now before us; that is, the issue of whether or not Miguel Estrada should proceed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Then I will talk a little while about the events over the weekend as they pertain to the looming war in Iraq. But as pertains to Mr. Estrada, as long as this person is in front of us on the floor of the Senate, as long as my good friend from Utah keeps taking the floor to ask for a vote on Mr. Estrada, this Senator will continue to take the floor to continue to remind my good friend from Utah of what happened to Bonnie Campbell under the Clinton administration when the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee. My friend, the Senator from Utah said: An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask. If the Democrats have enough votes to defeat Miguel Estrada, I am not going to complain about it. I might feel badly about it. I might think it is the wrong thing to do, but they have a right to do that. If my colleagues disagree, and don't like this, they can speak out, they can give their reasoning and vote no. Politics ought to be left out of it. It is unfortunate we did not hear that when President Clinton's nominees were sent to the Senate for confirmation. In fact, I said the same thing as my friend from Utah said at the time on the nomination of Bonnie Campbell to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Bonnie Campbell is a former attorney general of the State of Iowa, an individual who, by all reckoning, did an outstanding job at the Department of Justice, heading the Office of Violence Against Women. She was nominated by President Clinton to be on the Eighth Circuit, and we could not even get a vote on her. She received her hearing in May of 2000 and answered whatever questions were propounded to her. She stood willing to produce any and all documents she had ever written for anyone. No, not once did any Republican Senator complain that Bonnie Campbell was not forthcoming. In fact, I am told that not once did a Republican Senator complain that a Clinton nominee did not adequately answer these questions. So here she was, ready to answer, ready to move on. The hearing was held. She had the ABA stamp of approval. As I said, she had a long and distinguished history in the field of law. There were Members on both sides of the aisle who supported her nomination. Both Senator Grassley and I, from the State of Iowa, supported her nomination. On September 21, 2000, I said right here: If, for some reason, you think she is unqualified--I can't imagine why--then cast your vote, but at least let's bring the nominee to the floor. This, I think, is a black mark on the operations of the Senate, another indication of how the leadership of this Senate refuses to do the people's business, to let things come out on the floor so we can vote things up or down. On October 3, 2000, I said: It is clear who is playing politics with judgeships. The Republican leadership of the Senate is playing the most bold-faced politics. It is not alleged these nominees are not qualified; it is simply they were nominated by a Democratic President. That is all. I have not heard one person on the Republican side tell me that Bonnie Campbell is not qualified to be a circuit judge. Then during the month of October 2000, I brought up Bonnie Campbell's nomination seven times on the floor. I asked unanimous consent to go to it on the executive calendar, and seven times the Republican majority objected. My friend from Utah has talked about the Democrats' double standard. My first instinct is to call that laughable, but in reality, it is outrageous because so many extremely well-qualified Clinton nominees not only never got an up-or-down vote on the floor, they never got a vote on committee. In many cases, they didn't even get a hearing. I mentioned this a week or so ago. My friend from Utah said Bonnie Campbell's nomination came too late in the last year of the last administration. Well, I know for a fact two of Senator Kyl's district judges were nominated after Bonnie Campbell was nominated, and they were confirmed on October 3, 2000. In fact, I have a list of all the Clinton judicial nominees who were never allowed a vote. There were 79 who were not confirmed--31 circuit, 48 district. Fifty-nine were never even allowed a vote. Allen Snyder, DC Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans; Elena Kagen, DC Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans; Robert Cindrich, Third Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans. I will not read the whole list. There are 59 of them. But obviously one of those is Bonnie Campbell. As long as Mr. Estrada is going to be here, I will keep reminding people of what they did to someone eminently well qualified who answered all the questions, was open to giving any writings, documents, or whatever anyone had asked of her. Yet she was stopped and wasn't even given a vote. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of all the judicial nominees who were not confirmed that President Clinton nominated, with a list of how many were never even given a vote.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to address briefly the issue of whether or not this is anti-Hispanic, something like that. I keep hearing this talk that Democrats are going to be accused of being against Hispanics. Again, we do have to point out some history. Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel, and Christine Arguello were all nominated to the circuit courts by President Clinton, but were never afforded a hearing or vote in the Judiciary Committee under Republicans. My colleague from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, was quoted in the Dallas Morning News of January 31 of this year: If we deny Mr. Estrada the position on the DC circuit, it would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere. Well, let's take a look at the reality and the record. There are more than 1,000 local, State, or Federal judges of Hispanic heritage. Yet President Bush has nominated only one Hispanic to any of the 42 vacant appellate positions. This administration has failed to nominate a single Hispanic judge for any of the circuits covering Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, New York, New Jersey, or Puerto Rico, where there are sizable minorities of Hispanic Americans. In contrast, President Clinton nominated 11 Latinos to these circuit courts and 21 to the district courts--quite a difference. Again, my friend from Utah said on February 12: What gets me is, we are in the middle of a filibuster of a Federal judge when the Constitution says we should give advice and consent, not advice and obstruction, not advice and filibuster, not advice and unfairness. Again, I wish I would have heard that when Bonnie Campbell had come up before the committee. As long as Mr. Estrada is here, I will continue, as I have today and as I have in the past, to bring up the issue of Bonnie Campbell because obviously it remains a dark mark on the Senate, one that was held up simply for purely partisan political reasons and nothing else.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Cochran, Lincoln, Kerry, Bingaman, Dodd, and Baucus. The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programing. As of today, it is estimated that 3,000 captioners will be needed to fulfill this requirement, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States only has 300 captioners. If our country expects to have media fully captioned by 2006, something must be done. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many requires captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides. Though we don't necessarily think about it, on the morning of September 11 was a perfect example of the need for captioners. Holli Miller of Ankeny, IA, was captioning for Fox News. She was supposed to do her three and a half hour shift ending at 8:00 a.m. but as we all know, disaster struck. Despite the fact that she had already worked most of her shift and had two small children to care for, Holli Miller stayed right where she was and for nearly five more hours and continued to caption. Without even the ability to take bathroom breaks, Holli Miller made sure that deaf and hard of hearing people got the same news the rest of us got on September 11. I want to personnally say thank you to Holli Miller and all the many captioners and other people across the country that made sure all Americans were alert and informed on that tragic day. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 to 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. In addition, I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere--from the gym to the airport. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium. Although we have a few years to go until the deadline given by the 1996 Telecom Act, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past five years, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased significantly, causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet the need for these skills continues to rise. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet our goal set by the 1996 Telecom Act. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and I hope they will join us in support and join us in our effort to win its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Cochran, Lincoln, Kerry, Bingaman, Dodd, and Baucus. The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programing. As of today, it is estimated that 3,000 captioners will be needed to fulfill this requirement, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States only has 300 captioners. If our country expects to have media fully captioned by 2006, something must be done. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many requires captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides. Though we don't necessarily think about it, on the morning of September 11 was a perfect example of the need for captioners. Holli Miller of Ankeny, IA, was captioning for Fox News. She was supposed to do her three and a half hour shift ending at 8:00 a.m. but as we all know, disaster struck. Despite the fact that she had already worked most of her shift and had two small children to care for, Holli Miller stayed right where she was and for nearly five more hours and continued to caption. Without even the ability to take bathroom breaks, Holli Miller made sure that deaf and hard of hearing people got the same news the rest of us got on September 11. I want to personnally say thank you to Holli Miller and all the many captioners and other people across the country that made sure all Americans were alert and informed on that tragic day. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 to 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. In addition, I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere--from the gym to the airport. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium. Although we have a few years to go until the deadline given by the 1996 Telecom Act, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past five years, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased significantly, causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet the need for these skills continues to rise. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet our goal set by the 1996 Telecom Act. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and I hope they will join us in support and join us in our effort to win its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came to Congress in 1975 and served in the House until 1984, when I was elected to the Senate. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee and later the Senate Agriculture Committee I have always known the importance of agriculture conservation. My home State of Iowa is rich in agriculture and also rich in the tradition of conservation. But even in Iowa, we recognize the need for more conservation. For decades we had cost-share money available for producers through the Agriculture Conservation Program. But, it was not until 1990 that a farm bill took the next critical step toward conservation by including my Water Quality Incentives Program. This program, for the first time in agriculture history, included incentive payments for producers. The basic concepts and principles of WQIP were the foundation for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, included in the 1996 farm bill. EQIP, which expanded beyond water quality to all natural resources, was a fundamental advancement for conservation on working lands. However, even with these advances we were still spending over 90 percent of conservation dollars on land retirement programs, namely CRP and WRP. While these two programs are critically important, it became abundantly clear that conservation on working lands needed to be addressed. EQIP was hugely popular among farmers and ranchers, but the dollars were limited and many, many, many producers were left stranded--unable to access this program. Moreover, a growing resentment from good conservationists was brewing over the EQIP funding. Too many good stewards of their lands were left out of the conservation programs. Those who worked hard, using their own resources and ingenuity, were not recognized by USDA agriculture conservation programs. As I traveled the countryside, it became abundantly clear that change was necessary. I heard from many producers that we finally needed a good strong conservation program open to all producers, not just a few select producers. And, they told me that we needed a conservation program that rewarded those committed stewards of the land, instead of excluding them. During the development of the farm bill, I continued to press for an expanded conservation title. To expand and improve the existing conservation programs and to finally add a new conservation program which I called the Conservation Security Program--a program to secure the right of all American farmers and ranchers to access conservation dollars to adopt and maintain conservation practices on their lands. We did not put a cap on the CSP so that all producers who would carry out conservation and meet the requirements could enroll in it. The CSP was a novel approach to conservation--it adopted the well- accepted full participation principle in our commodity programs. That is the most unique factor of CSP. I first proposed CSP in 1999 and over the next three years CSP evolved into the groundbreaking program that was included in the 2002 farm bill. Prior to the final product, the CSP was introduced in a bipartisan manner on both the House and the Senate in 2001. Senator Smith of Oregon and I worked hard on developing this important program. It took long hours of negotiation involving staff together with major commodity groups, like the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and many others. Moreover, we worked extensively with the USDA. Eventually, we developed a program embraced by both commodity and conservation groups alike. But, the evolution of CSP continued through the development of the farm bill. As the Senate worked on the farm bill, Senator Lugar, Senator Smith and I continued to modify the CSP to ensure that the environmental benefits were maximized and that farmer access was paramount. Senator Lugar and I developed joint principles on the farm bill, including for the conservation title. While both Senator Lugar and I vocally supported a strong conservation title, we took time to refine the CSP. As a result of our bipartisan work, the conservation title, including a CSP without an arbitrary funding limit of the Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously. But, our work on the CSP was far from over. As we moved into conference with the House, we again worked to improve CSP. We worked tirelessly and carefully to refine the CSP and make sure that it was acceptable to all members of conference. This was not a simple process. The Farm bill conference took months, and the conservation title was debated during the entire process. I personally engaged in weeks of negotiations on the CSP. Because I understood the critical importance of including a CSP without a funding cap in the final bill, I made many concessions on the farm bill. Finally, after months of debate, the conference agreed to include CSP as an uncapped program--one open to all producers who meet requirements of the program and one that would have a budget baseline in the future as the program grew. The farm bill was a carefully negotiated bill that required a delicate balancing of all concerns. When President Bush signed the 2002 farm bill last May, we all celebrated the historic increase in conservation spending for existing and new programs. For the first time ever, the farm bill took a monumental step forward toward truly addressing conservation of natural resources on our farms and ranches in the form of the CSP. The CSP, by its uncapped nature, ensured for the first time that all farmers and ranchers who meet the requirements may participate in an agriculture conservation program. Again, it was uncapped nature of this program that provided for this program that provided for this giant step for conservation--for both our farmers and ranchers and the environment. I must restate that the CSP will generate real environment benefits. The design of CSP mandate these benefits. Producers are required to maintain or adopt conservation practices at the highest level of all conservation programs. Why else is CSP so important? For many reasons--It is the first program that provides a comprehensive approach covering the full range of conservation and environmental issues related to working lands, and enables participation based on one unified, site-specific conservation plan. CSP helps rebalance conservation funding in support of incentives for land in production so that producers don't have to retireland and stop farming in order to benefit. CSP is open to producers of all types of crops and all parts of the country. CSP, for the first time, pays producers in recognition of the public nature resource and environmental benefits provided on working farms and ranches, including maintenance payments for active management of already adopted practices. And, CSP is compatible with our trade obligations under WTO. That is why major commodity and conservation groups support CSP. Groups including, Cotton Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, United Fresh Fruits & Vegetables, U.S. Rice Producers, American Farmland Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Audubon Society, Pheasants Forever, Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, Union of Concerned Scientists and many more. Despite the Administration's contention that it supports voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill, we have found that their words are not matched by their actions. In fact, the Administration has actively worked to undermine conservation programs. Just recently, the Administration described CSP as having ``a unique role among USDA conservation programs. It identifies and rewards those farmers and ranchers who meet the highest standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations, creates powerful incentives for other producers to meet those same standards of conservation performance on their operations, and provides public benefits for generations to come.'' Despite this glowing endorsement, the Administration has attacked CSP--by proposing to cut back CSP to a strict $2 billion for 10 years in the FY04 budget and by pushing to cap CSP to only $3.77 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. The manner in which the CSP was capped was unfair. It began with a small provision in the House agriculture appropriations bill by limiting CSP as a pilot program in FY03 in my home state of Iowa. But as time went on and the majority developed an inadequate disaster bill--one that doesn't provide the necessary support farmers need, they decided they needed an offset for the program. So, for the first time, we have now created a horrible precedent of requiring an offset for disaster payments. And, where did the Administration go for this offset? The farm bill which was just passed nine months ago. And, more importantly, what did the Administration attack first--the conservation title. During the farm bill, the CSP was scored by CBO for $2 billion, but as the popularity and producer support and excitement for this program grew, CBO rescored this program for significantly more. In fact, the most recent score for CSP is $6.8 billion. Instead of seeing a wonderful vehicle to accomplish conservation on the ground, the Bush Administration viewed CSP as a cash cow--one to attack to pay for disaster payments. So, without any ability for debate, in the quiet of the night behind closed doors the Administration undermined the most important conservation program ever authorized--a conservation program open to all producers and capped the CSP. This cap fundamentally changes the CSP. No longer can all producers have the security of knowing they can participate in a conservation program, no longer can the promised environmental benefits of the conservation title of the farm bill guaranteed. By capping this program--unintended restrictions on participation will follow and the baseline we worked so hard to develop and so carefully negotiated in the farm bill is gone. And, we have greatly hindered the most promising program we had for meeting our WTO obligations in the future. It is clear today that the Administration is bent on undermining conservation practices and the CSP. It is clear that its words of praise for conservation cannot be reconciled with its destructive measures. The colloquy between Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator Daschle, Senator Frist and me entered into on passage of the Omnibus Appropriations bill on February 13, will hopefully lead to correcting this mistake on the next supplemental appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Congressman Goodlatte be printed in the Record.