Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I don't know if that is right. We would have to look at that to see if that is right. Thirteen thousand Iraqi civilians killed? How many women, how many children? The rest of the world is asking, what has happened to you, America? America used to be the moral leader in the world. You were the ones we looked to for guidance and direction, to be honest and open, not secretive, not lying to the rest of the world. When we confronted Nikita Khruschev in 1962 when they put missiles in Cuba, we had the photographs. We had the positive proof. The world has looked upon us like that. And now? Now the rest of the world is looking at the United States and saying: You are just lying. You lied about this. You covered it up. And look at the mess you have created now. And still President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, the whole crowd of them still continues to insist that everything they did was right. They still continue to insist that they would do the whole thing just as they did it. In any other country in this world, if the leadership of that country had done this, they would have to resign in disgrace. They certainly would not be seeking reelection. I am surprised this President and Vice President and their team are asking the American people to put them there again after this--1,061 Americans dead; several thousand, 8,000, severely injured for the rest of their lives. Now we have this report about 13,000 Iraqi civilians dead. It is a country in chaos. America is isolated in the world community when, after September 11, 2001, the world was on our side. They were with us. They wanted to help us go after al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and the terrorists because the rest of the world knew then, as they know now, they have a stake in going after terrorists. But they had no stake in going into a misguided war, a war that we were taken into with falsehoods--absolute, total falsehoods. I would be the first to say I don't have all the answers on how we get out of Iraq. It is just like dropping a ceramic bowl and it breaks and you have to put it together again. It is very tough. But I do know this: We will never solve our situation in Iraq, we will never get our troops out of Iraq with the leadership we have in the White House right now. This President has burned his bridges; he has poisoned the well with every country in the world. People know they misled us and continued to mislead us in Iraq. I mentioned the lives. How about the money--$200 billion and counting. Well, they say $130 billion or $140 billion. Come on, it is going to be well over $200 billion, and we know that. Yet we cannot provide health care to our people. We cannot fund No Child Left Behind. We cannot pass a highway bill to rebuild our highways because we don't have enough money. No, I don't have all the answers in Iraq. I am the first to state that. I know one thing: We will never be able to get out of Iraq and solve that mess with the leadership that has so misled us and the world in the past. We need new leadership with fresh credibility to give them a chance to go to the rest of the world and say there is someone new here, and we are going to rebuild those coalitions and alliances. We are not going to continue to go down that road. There is one thing about being consistent; there is another thing about being stubborn and reckless.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass legislation that is critically important to individuals with disabilities and elderly Americans: the Assistive Technology Act of 2004. I am delighted that we are completing this bill, which will also shortly be passed in the House. I want to thank Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Roberts, Reed, and DeWine, and Representatives Boehner and Miller, among others, for their excellent bipartisan work to get this accomplished. Assistive technology is absolutely critical to the lives of people with disabilities. According to an NOD/Harris poll earlier this year, 35 percent of individuals with disabilities say that they would not be able to live independently or take care of themselves at home without assistive technology. Assistive technology also opens up opportunities in education, employment and civic participation that would not otherwise be available to many individuals with disabilities. As the National Council on Disability puts it: ``For Americans without disabilities, technology makes things easier. For Americans with disabilities, technology makes things possible.'' The bill that we are reauthorizing today builds on the successes of the Assistive Technology Act dating back to 1988. The State Assistive Technology programs have been highly effective in providing information, training, and technical assistance to a wide array of individuals, including people with disabilities, their families, educators, health care professionals and others. Let me give you an example from my own State of Iowa. Ben Moore, owner of Moore Construction in Iowa City, learned about universal design--the practice of building homes so that people with and without disabilities can get around in them--because of the work of the Iowa Program for Assistive Technology. He went on to build a universally designed home for two Iowans with disabilities. Now he is encouraging other contractors to use universal design to build beautiful homes that Iowans can remain in as they grow old. Given Iowa's aging population, this is very important work. Joy Crimmins from Dubuque, IA, has benefited from the advocacy services funded through the act. She has a newly accessible bedroom and bathroom in her home because the assistive technology program provided legal advocacy to her family to get their home modified. This wonderful work is not happening just in Iowa. The most recent data available, for Fiscal Year 2002, indicates that these programs are making a substantial difference nationally. In 2002, 92,000 equipment demonstrations were provided; 38,000 AT devices were loaned to individuals with disabilities; and more than 6,000 devices were exchanged or recycled. Also, more than 6 million dollars was loaned to individuals with disabilities so they could purchase assistive technology, ranging from a hearing device to an accessible van. The AT programs also provided timely information to Americans, answering 151,000 requests for assistance, and training more than 172,000 people. Despite all of these successes, we recognize that there is much more to be done. The NOD/Harris poll indicates that 17 percent of individuals with disabilities still do not have the assistive technology device or equipment that they need. And the biggest barrier is cost. In this reauthorization, we emphasize programs that will improve access to assistive technology devices by providing loans, leases or other financing programs as well as recycled equipment. While there are many important initiatives in this bill, I will highlight a few of the most significant. First, the bill for the first time authorizes a $410,000 State minimum for each of the State projects to ensure that each state has the funds necessary to carry out the requirements of the act. The bill also provides that the majority of the Federal funds will be spent on activities designed to provide direct access to assistive technology, including equipment loan, device reutilization, device demonstration, and financing systems. States will continue their successful public awareness and coordination activities. States will also continue to provide technical assistance, with a new focus on individuals with disabilities who are going through transition periods and need assistive technology to be successful. This is particularly important for students with disabilities who are receiving IDEA services and transitioning to higher education, employment and independent living. It is also critical to adults with disabilities and older Americans who need help maintaining independent living or transitioning from a nursing home or institution to the community. The Senate recently passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and we continue to be concerned about implementation of the ADA and the Olmstead decision. This effort aligns the Assistive Technology Act with these other initiatives. Because individuals with disabilities still are afforded significantly fewer employment opportunities than individuals without disabilities, the bill places an emphasis on educating employers and employees. One of the projects of national significance authorized in the bill includes development of public service announcements and other means of reaching out to employers, giving them information regarding assistive technology. The other project of national significance promotes research and development so we can have come up with assistive technologies that can open up more doors for individuals with disabilities. This reauthorization recognizes the ongoing contribution of protection and advocacy services in making assistive technology available to individuals with disabilities. And it adds the Native American Protection and Advocacy System to those receiving funds under the act. Iowa's successful advocacy program will also be continued under this bill. These are just a few of the many significant issues addressed in this bill. It is a very comprehensive effort, made possible by the hard work of the many stakeholders that participated. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, and his staff, particularly Aaron Bishop and Denzel McGuire, for their excellent work on this bipartisan initiative. I also want to recognize the work of Senators Kennedy, Roberts, Reed and DeWine and their staff members, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Jennifer Swenson, Elyse Wasch, Erica Swanson, and MaryBeth Luna. And I'd like to recognize Congressman Boehner and Miller and their staff members, David Cleary and Alex Nock, for working on this bipartisan, bicameral bill. As part of this reauthorization process, committee staff have had extensive bipartisan briefings and met with a very wide array of stakeholders. Stakeholders also participated in work groups designed to forge consensus on many of the issues addressed in this bill. As a result, I believe we are passing a very strong bill. I want to thank the many individuals with disabilities, family members, assistive technology programs, vendors, members of the information technology industry, the financial and business community, service providers, advocates, educators and others who gave generously of their time and worked so hard on this bill. This bill continues the tradition of bipartisan cooperation that has marked every significant disability bill that has been passed by Congress. Just as the ADA, IDEA and other bills have been bipartisan, so is this Assistive Technology Act of 2004, We can all be proud to see it enacted into law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Sarah Helgen during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. I want to correct one other thing that was said this morning by the Senator from Arizona. He talked about the connections between al-Qaida and Iraq. He quoted Mr. Tom Kean speaking about that relationship, and I will quote, in its entirety, from page 66 of the report: The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. Sure, it is true that al-Qaida had relationships with Iraq. They had relationships with Saudi Arabia. They had relationships in Egypt. They had relationships in a lot of countries. But as the report clearly shows on page 66, there was no operational relationship between al- Qaida and Iraq as determined by the Commission. I yield back whatever time I have remaining. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2004] Growing Pessimism on Iraq (By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks) A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense. While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say. People at the CIA ``are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,'' said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. ``There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.'' ``Things are definitely not improving,'' said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq. ``It is getting worse,'' agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. ``It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago.'' This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. ``Yes, it's getting worse,'' he said of the insurgency on ABC's ``This Week.'' At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC's ``Meet the Press'' that ``we will fight our way through the elections.'' Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place. Powell's admission and Abizaid's sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration's and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments. In the best-case scenario, the NIC said, Iraq could be expected to achieve a ``tenuous stability'' over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war. The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that also were more pessimistic in tone than the administration's portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, according to senior administration officials. ``All say they expect things to get worse,'' one former official said. One official involved in evaluating the July document said the NIC, which advises the director of central intelligence, decided not to include a more rosy scenario ``because it looked so unreal.'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of ``pessimists and naysayers'' after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times. President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials. ``The CIA laid out several scenarios,'' Bush said on Sept. 21. ``It said that life could by lousy. Life could be okay. Life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.'' Two days later, Bush reworded his response. ``I used an unfortunate word, `guess.' I should have used `estimate.' `` ``And the CIA came and said, `This is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility,''' Bush continued. ``But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report.'' Rumsfeld, who once dismissed the insurgents as ``dead- enders,'' still offers a positive portrayal of prospects and progress in Iraq but has begun to temper his optimism in public. ``The path towards liberty is not smooth there; it never has been,'' he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. ``And my personal view is that a fair assessment requires some patience and some perspective.'' This week, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak criticized the CIA and Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer on the NIC who supervised the preparation of the assessment. Novak said comments Pillar made about Iraq during a private dinner in California showed that he and others at the CIA are at war with the president. Recent and current intelligence officials interviewed over the last two days dispute that view. ``Pillar is the ultimate professional,'' said Daniel Byman, an intelligence expert and Georgetown University professor who has worked with Pillar. ``If anything, he's too soft- spoken.'' ``I'm not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive,'' said one CIA official, who like many others interviewed would speak only anonymously, either because they don't have official authorization to speak or because they worry about ramifications of criticizing top administration officials. ``We weren't trying to make them look bad, we're just trying to give them information. Of course, we're telling them something they don't want to hear.'' As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, ``There's a real war going on here that's not just'' the CIA against the administration on Iraq ``but the State Department and the military'' as well. National security officials acknowledge that the upcoming presidential election also seems to have distorted the public debate on Iraq. ``Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people,'' said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, ``I don't think the political discourse that we're in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There's a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side.'' Reports from Iraq have made one Army staff officer question whether adequate progress is being made there. ``They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but what I hear from the ground is that they aren't working,'' he said. ``There's a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out.'' He added: ``I hope I'm wrong.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is no longer any doubt about President Bush's reelection strategy. It is the same strategy that was used in the election 2 years ago: They invoke the images of the 9/11 attacks and warn that new terrorist attacks are imminent. They stoke Americans' fears and anxieties. And, of course, they accuse their opponents of being weak on terrorism, not willing to defend America. The events of 9/11 were traumatic, and we all understand Americans' fear of a new terrorist attack. But it is despicable to politicize this fear. It is despicable to exploit people's anxieties for political advantage. But this administration has done this again and again. This is exactly what Vice President Dick Cheney was up to when he warned that if John Kerry is elected President, then ``the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating.'' You have to appreciate the pure Orwellian beauty of that statement. It was on President Bush's watch that we suffered the September 11 attack, a real attack, not a hypothetical one, and that attack happened despite multiple warnings to Mr. Bush from the CIA that al-Qaida was planning to attack America. Yet now his attack dog Vice President has the gall to warn that if John Kerry is elected President, the terrorists will hit us with a ``devastating attack.'' As I said, this is the administration's reelection strategy: Fear and smear; politicize the terrorist threat; exploit people's fears and anxieties for political advantage. Late last week, President Bush and his allies escalated this strategy to a new level. They are now saying, in effect, that Senator Kerry is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, and that as Republican Representative Tom Cole crudely put it: If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election. Last Tuesday, the senior Senator from Utah, and a good friend of mine, Senator Hatch, said that terrorists ``are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry.'' Last Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said terrorists in Iraq ``are trying to influence the election against President Bush.'' Last Thursday, President Bush said Senator Kerry's statements on Iraq ``can embolden the enemy.'' And Vice President Cheney called Senator Kerry ``destructive'' to the war on terrorism. This morning our colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, criticized an earlier floor statement by Senator Kennedy. Senator Kyl said that Senator Kennedy's criticisms of the President's policy in Iraq were ``giving confidence to the enemy.'' That was said just this morning on the floor of the Senate. This is disturbing. Since when is an entirely legitimate and justified criticism of the President's policy in Iraq ``giving confidence to the enemy.'' This is an outrageous accusation. It has no place on the Senate floor for legitimate debate. I remind the Senator from Arizona of the wise words of President Dwight Eisenhower who said that criticism and dissent are the bedrock of democracy. This is what President Eisenhower said in 1954 at Columbia University: Here in America, we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels--men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. That was President Dwight Eisenhower. So we will not be silenced by accusations of disloyalty or accusations that we are helping the enemy or giving confidence to the enemy. Is all we are supposed to do hush up and allow Mr. Bush's reckless policies to lead us deeper and deeper into the quagmire? These gentlemen claim to have such excellent access to the terrorists' thoughts. It would be nice if they would turn that knowledge into an effective policy against the terrorists. Instead, at key junctures, this administration has made disastrously wrong choices and repeatedly these decisions have played into the terrorists' hands. Look at the record. It is a fact that the September 11 attacks happened despite repeated warnings to the President from the CIA that al-Qaida was planning to attack America. Those warnings included an August 8, 2001, President's daily briefing which he received when he was on vacation in Crawford, TX, titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' That is not a subhead or a sentence in the memo; that is the title of the memo: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' Let's look at the rest of the record. President Bush botched the single best opportunity to capture bin Laden when we had him cornered in Torah Borah in Afghanistan, and yet the President removed intelligence personnel and predator aircraft from Afghanistan to put them in Iraq. It was President Bush who 3 years ago pledged to smoke bin Laden out of his cave but has utterly failed to do so. Instead, by successfully defying the President, because we have been so bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, bin Laden has become a folk hero across much of the Muslim world. He has attracted not only thousands of new recruits but dozens of imitators, new bin Ladens, forming their own terrorist organizations to attack America and Americans. It was President Bush who diverted, as I said, our military and intelligence resources from the hunt of bin Laden in order to attack Iraq. It was President Bush whose taunt of ``bring it on'' did indeed bring it on--a nationwide insurgency in Iraq, an urban guerrilla that has trapped our Armed Forces, as I said, in a quagmire. It was President Bush whose unilateral approach on Iraq served to alienate many of our oldest allies and to turn world opinion against the United States. It was President Bush whose invasion and occupation of the second largest Arab country has outraged much of the Muslim world and has been a recruiting bonanza for terrorism. Indeed, George W. Bush's policies-- reckless and wrong--have been the best recruiting tool imaginable for al-Qaida. This is an astonishing record of mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations, and mismanagement. It is an astonishing record of George W. Bush again and again playing into Osama bin Laden's hands. It is sort of like watching the cartoon of Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner, only it is not funny. It is a colossal tragedy that has put our Nation at even greater risk. Ironically, President Bush's father, the first President Bush, warned against the folly of invading and occupying Iraq. On February 28, 1999, speaking to a group of Desert Storm veterans at Fort Myer, VA, he said: Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done that, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours-- and then what? Whose life would be on my hands as the Commander in Chief because I unilaterally went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. That is not this Senator saying that; that is former President Bush in February 1999. Now, of course, we heard the same pathetic warnings from Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and other foreign policy specialists, but this President and his partner Dick Cheney and their posse of neoconservative intellectuals thought they knew better. They reveled in words like ``slam dunk'' and ``cakewalk.'' And so now the disaster Bush 41 warned against has become a reality under Bush 43. President Bush repeatedly says that his No. 1 job is to protect the American people. But the view of professionals on the front line is that he has failed to do so. The Iraq invasion has set back, rather than advanced, the war on terrorism and al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Our Armed Forces are bogged down in Iraq with casualties rising above 8,000 and are not available to respond to real threats to the United States. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandals, our moral authority and credibility on the world stage are at rock bottom. I was watching former President Jimmy Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, at the Carter Center just a few days ago saying that he has visited 120 countries around the world, and he believes that at no time in the history of our country has our esteem, credibility, and moral authority been at such a low point. Despite President Bush's loud threats toward the so-called ``axis of evil'' on his watch, North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons. Iran appears to be proceeding with impunity to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Again, this is an extraordinary record of mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations, and missed opportunities. As a consequence of the choices made by this President over the last 4 years, I believe today America is weaker, less secure, and more vulnerable. It is indeed time, past time, to change these policies. I ask unanimous consent that at the termination of my remarks, two articles, ``Growing Pessimism on Iraq,'' Wednesday, September 29, Washington Post, and an article appearing on September 28 in the New York Times, ``Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread,'' be printed in their entirety in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Iowa have?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague and Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Mr. Cochran in introducing this piece of legislation to correct a continuing problem at the U.S. Department of Agriculture with funding for technical assistance for agricultural producers and landowners participating in agricultural conservation programs. The 2002 farm bill contains a historic increase in funding for conservation programs, including for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP). These programs provide our nation's producers and landowners the financial and technical means to protect and enhance natural resources, including water, air, soil and wildlife habitat. To realize the environmental benefits made possible by this large new investment in conservation, it is essential that farmers, ranchers and landowners receive professional technical assistance to help them plan, design and carry out effective and workable conservation practices in their specific operations. This technical assistance is provided by employees of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and, under the 2002 farm bill, private sector providers. Because technical assistance is so crucial to the effectiveness of conservation programs, the 2002 farm bill included sufficient money for technical assistance as an integral part of the mandatory funding provided for each of the conservation programs. The legislation requires USDA to use mandatory funds to carry out the conservation programs, ``including the provision of technical assistance.'' By providing funding in this manner, Congress acted to remedy the substantial and continuing shortfalls in technical assistance for mandatory conservation programs under the 1996 farm bill--which on several occasions necessitated limited stop-gap funding in appropriations measures. These shortfalls resulted from application of a limitation on transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), often referred to as ``the section 11 cap''. The only conservation program not affected by this limitation was EQIP. That is because the statutory language creating and funding EQIP specifically identified technical assistance as an integral function of the program, thereby creating a funding stream through the program funds directly and outside the limitation on Section 11 transfers from CCC. In drafting the 2002 farm bill, Congress was thus fully aware of the recurrent shortages of technical assistance funds which plagued the 1996 farm bill's mandatory conservation programs and the manner in which EQIP technical assistance had been exempted from the limitation on CCC transfers. The wording and structure of the 2002 bill closely track the 1996 bill's EQIP language to specify clearly that technical assistance is an integral part of the bill's mandatory funding for each of the conservation programs, and hence not subject to the limitation on CCC transfers. Further, the 2002 farm bill's statement of managers unmistakably indicates that technical assistance is an integral part of mandatory funding, following the model used for EQIP in the 1996 bill. We believed that the language in the 2002 farm bill solved the problem by fully funding technical assistance through the mandatory program funds without the limitation on transfers from the CCC. Nevertheless, the administration, through the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice, construed the bill so that all conservation technical assistance fell under the Section 11 cap--even for EQIP. The U.S. General Accounting Office disagreed with the Administration's position and concluded that under the farm bill technical assistance is a part of the mandatory funds for each conservation program and not within the limitation on CCC transfers. The limitation on technical assistance under the administration's interpretation meant that much of the investment we made in the farm bill conservation programs would go unused for lack of technical assistance to plan for and carry out the conservation practices on the ground. To move beyond the impasse created by the misinterpretation of the farm bill by the administration, Congress added language to the 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act specifying that certain transfers of funding from the CCC for technical assistance are not subject to the Section 11 cap if the funds come directly from the funds provided for several of the conservation programs. This was only a partial solution. To limit the budget cost, technical assistance funds for all conservation programs (except CSP) are transferred from the funds provided for a subset of programs, namely EQIP, WHIP, GRP and FRPP, that have annual funding limits in the farm bill. As a result, technical assistance funds for WRP and CRP have been taken from the annual mandatory funds provided for the four dollar- limited programs. This has resulted in a diversion of over $200 million to pay for technical assistance for CRP and WRP that would otherwise have gone directly to agricultural producers and landowners through EQIP, WHIP, CRP and FRPP. The legislation we are introducing today will take the next step and permanently fix the technical assistance funding problem. It will cure the shortage of technical assistance funding so funds will no longer be taken from EQIP, WHIP, GRP or FRPP to pay for technical assistance for CRP and WRP. And, it will finally restore the original intent of the 2002 farm bill to have technical assistance funding come out of the CCC funding provided for each conservation program.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague and Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Mr. Cochran in introducing this piece of legislation to correct a continuing problem at the U.S. Department of Agriculture with funding for technical assistance for agricultural producers and landowners participating in agricultural conservation programs. The 2002 farm bill contains a historic increase in funding for conservation programs, including for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP). These programs provide our nation's producers and landowners the financial and technical means to protect and enhance natural resources, including water, air, soil and wildlife habitat. To realize the environmental benefits made possible by this large new investment in conservation, it is essential that farmers, ranchers and landowners receive professional technical assistance to help them plan, design and carry out effective and workable conservation practices in their specific operations. This technical assistance is provided by employees of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and, under the 2002 farm bill, private sector providers. Because technical assistance is so crucial to the effectiveness of conservation programs, the 2002 farm bill included sufficient money for technical assistance as an integral part of the mandatory funding provided for each of the conservation programs. The legislation requires USDA to use mandatory funds to carry out the conservation programs, ``including the provision of technical assistance.'' By providing funding in this manner, Congress acted to remedy the substantial and continuing shortfalls in technical assistance for mandatory conservation programs under the 1996 farm bill--which on several occasions necessitated limited stop-gap funding in appropriations measures. These shortfalls resulted from application of a limitation on transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), often referred to as ``the section 11 cap''. The only conservation program not affected by this limitation was EQIP. That is because the statutory language creating and funding EQIP specifically identified technical assistance as an integral function of the program, thereby creating a funding stream through the program funds directly and outside the limitation on Section 11 transfers from CCC. In drafting the 2002 farm bill, Congress was thus fully aware of the recurrent shortages of technical assistance funds which plagued the 1996 farm bill's mandatory conservation programs and the manner in which EQIP technical assistance had been exempted from the limitation on CCC transfers. The wording and structure of the 2002 bill closely track the 1996 bill's EQIP language to specify clearly that technical assistance is an integral part of the bill's mandatory funding for each of the conservation programs, and hence not subject to the limitation on CCC transfers. Further, the 2002 farm bill's statement of managers unmistakably indicates that technical assistance is an integral part of mandatory funding, following the model used for EQIP in the 1996 bill. We believed that the language in the 2002 farm bill solved the problem by fully funding technical assistance through the mandatory program funds without the limitation on transfers from the CCC. Nevertheless, the administration, through the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice, construed the bill so that all conservation technical assistance fell under the Section 11 cap--even for EQIP. The U.S. General Accounting Office disagreed with the Administration's position and concluded that under the farm bill technical assistance is a part of the mandatory funds for each conservation program and not within the limitation on CCC transfers. The limitation on technical assistance under the administration's interpretation meant that much of the investment we made in the farm bill conservation programs would go unused for lack of technical assistance to plan for and carry out the conservation practices on the ground. To move beyond the impasse created by the misinterpretation of the farm bill by the administration, Congress added language to the 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act specifying that certain transfers of funding from the CCC for technical assistance are not subject to the Section 11 cap if the funds come directly from the funds provided for several of the conservation programs. This was only a partial solution. To limit the budget cost, technical assistance funds for all conservation programs (except CSP) are transferred from the funds provided for a subset of programs, namely EQIP, WHIP, GRP and FRPP, that have annual funding limits in the farm bill. As a result, technical assistance funds for WRP and CRP have been taken from the annual mandatory funds provided for the four dollar- limited programs. This has resulted in a diversion of over $200 million to pay for technical assistance for CRP and WRP that would otherwise have gone directly to agricultural producers and landowners through EQIP, WHIP, CRP and FRPP. The legislation we are introducing today will take the next step and permanently fix the technical assistance funding problem. It will cure the shortage of technical assistance funding so funds will no longer be taken from EQIP, WHIP, GRP or FRPP to pay for technical assistance for CRP and WRP. And, it will finally restore the original intent of the 2002 farm bill to have technical assistance funding come out of the CCC funding provided for each conservation program.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time am I allotted?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Sundquist of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also wish to speak for a few minutes about the mess in Iraq. Last week, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi came to Washington to join in President Bush's campaign of relentless happy talk about the war in Iraq. President Bush says: We're making progress. We're making progress. Meanwhile, back in the real world--the world that American soldiers confront on the ground in Iraq--the chaos gets worse and worse. Entire regions and many provincial capitals are under the insurgents' control. Virtually every day we see car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings. As we learned last week, the CIA has produced a formal National Intelligence Estimate that says that, at best, the current level of violence will continue and, at worst, Iraq will plunge into a civil war. As Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged yesterday, it is getting worse in Iraq. But amazingly, President Bush insists that this mess in Iraq has made us safer, and the President and his political allies have been relentless in using the war on terror for their own electoral purposes. Their message to the American people is simple: Be afraid, President Bush will protect you; his opponent will not. Vice President Dick Cheney also took this line of attack 2 weeks ago when he darkly warned with his Darth Vader-type voice that if John Kerry is elected President, then ``the danger is we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating.'' That was Vice President Cheney. Last Tuesday, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, said that terrorists ``are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry.'' Last Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said terrorists in Iraq ``are trying to influence the election against President Bush.'' If these gentlemen have such excellent access to the terrorists' thoughts, they are not doing a good job of turning that knowledge into effective policy against the terrorists. At key junctures, this administration has made disastrously wrong choices. Repeatedly, these decisions have played into the terrorists' hands. Let's look at the record. It is a fact that the September 11 attacks happened despite repeated warnings to Mr. Bush from the CIA that al-Qaida was planning to attack America. Those warnings included an August 8, 2001, President's daily briefing which he received while he was vacationing in Crawford, TX. The report was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.'' That is not a subhead or a sentence in the memo, that is the title of the memo: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' Let's look at the rest of the record. On President Bush's watch, the U.S. botched the single best opportunity to capture bin Laden at Torah Borah in Afghanistan. A political decision was made to allow Afghan warlords to carry the brunt of that siege, and bin Laden escaped. It was President Bush who 3 years ago pledged to smoke bin Laden out of his cave, but has utterly failed to do so. Instead, by successfully defying President Bush, bin Laden has become a folk hero across the Muslim world. He has attracted not only thousands of new recruits, but dozens of imitators, new bin Ladens who are forming their own terrorist organizations to attack America and Americans. It was President Bush who diverted our military intelligence resources and certain military hardware, such as the Predator aircraft, the unmanned aerial vehicles, took them out of Afghanistan, away from the hunt for bin Laden and sent them to Iraq. It was President Bush whose taunt, ``Bring it on,'' did indeed bring it on--a nationwide insurgency in Iraq, an urban guerrilla war that has trapped our Armed Forces in a quagmire. It was President Bush whose unilateral approach on Iraq alienated many of our oldest allies and turned world opinion against the United States. It was President Bush whose invasion and occupation of the second largest Arab country has outraged much of the Muslim world and has been a recruiting bonanza for Islamist terrorists. This is an astonishing record of mistakes, misjudgments, and mismanagement. It is an astonishing record of George W. Bush again and again playing into Osama bin Laden's hands. It is like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner, only this time it is not funny. It is a colossal tragedy. It has put our Nation at even greater risk of terrorist attack. Ironically, President Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, warned against the folly of invading and occupying Iraq. Listen to this. On February 28, 1999, speaking to a group of Desert Storm veterans at Fort Myer, VA, former President Bush said: Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours--and then what? The first President Bush continued: Whose life would be on my hands as the Commander in Chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. That is the first President Bush. That is not me. That is an exact quote from the first President Bush, 1999. I would say to this President: You do not have to listen to us, just listen to your father. He would have told you what you are getting into in Iraq. This is what his father said: We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. It is disastrous. Of course, we heard the same prophetic warnings from Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and other foreign policy experts. But this President Bush and his partner Dick Cheney and the neoconservative intellectuals thought they knew better. They reveled in words such as ``slam dunk'' and ``cakewalk.'' And so now the disaster that Bush 41 warned against has become a reality under Bush 43. The Iraq invasion has set back, rather than advanced, the war on terrorism and al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden remains at large--an imminent danger to our homeland. Our Armed Forces are bogged down in Iraq, with casualties rising above 8,000, and they are not able to respond to real threats to the United States. Our moral authority and credibility on the world stage are at rock bottom. The other day I was watching former President Carter at the Carter Center answer a question. He said he has been, I believe I am not mistaken, in over 120 countries. He said never in the history of the United States has our country been at such low esteem and moral authority in the rest of the world--never in the history of our country. Despite President Bush's blustery threats about the so-called axis of evil, on his watch, North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and Iran appears to be proceeding with impunity to develop its own nuclear weapons. This is an extraordinary record of mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations, and missed opportunities. As a consequence of President Bush's choices over the last 4 years, America is weaker, America is less secure, America is more vulnerable. I say to my friend and colleague from Utah, whom I quoted earlier, look at the record. Look at this record and come to only one conclusion: The single best recruitment poster for al-Qaida and the terrorists is our policy in Iraq. Quite frankly, the architect of that policy, the person who is carrying it out, is President George W. Bush. No, it is not John Kerry, I say to my friend from Utah. It is not John Kerry. George W. Bush's reckless, stubborn policy is the single best recruiter for al-Qaida, and this must end so that our people can truly be made secure; that we can go after the terrorists; that we can get out of this quagmire in Iraq; that we can once again become the moral authority, the shining city on a hill that America has been to the rest of the world. I am sad to say it will not happen on this President's watch. That is why a change is in order. I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared September 26, 2004, in the Los Angeles Times be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to talk a little about Iraq. Before that, I have a responsibility to respond to the majority leader's comments on health care today. Sometimes you hear things on the Senate floor and you have to stop and say, did I really hear that or is that just something I thought? I was really listening to the Republican leader talk about Republican support for health care--meaningful health care. Listening to the Republican leader talk about Republican support for meaningful health care is like listening to the big tobacco companies talk about the need for cancer research. How do I say that? Because the problems of cancer basically are caused by the big tobacco companies. The problem that we don't have a meaningful health care system in America today--people- based, patient-based, preventive care-based--is because of Republican Party policies. It has been very clear for a long time that the Republican Party has opposed any kind of meaningful people-based health care program. After all, it was our colleague, former Senator Robert Dole, who during his Presidential campaign in 1996 bragged he had voted against Medicare, as most Republicans did in the mid 1960s. Now, again, the majority leader says that the elderly are not signing up for these discount cards and we ought to be promoting them, sort of like a cheerleader. Maybe they are all taking their cue from the fact that President Bush was a cheerleader in college, so now we have to be a cheerleader. We heard that we have to cheerlead, regardless of what the facts are. There is a reason the elderly are not signing up for this card. It is meaningless. It doesn't do anything for them. Yet we are supposed to go out and be a cheerleader for them? Well, the Republicans rammed through their health care program. The elderly get a meaningless card, and the pharmaceutical companies got $12 billion in payments to entice them into this program. How about giving the elderly in our country $12 billion? I sum it up by saying that President Bush does have--I want to be fair to him--a health care plan. It is very simple and straightforward: Pray you don't get sick. That is President Bush's health care plan. John Kerry has a sound health care plan: One, to overturn the ban on Medicare bidding down the prices from pharmaceutical companies. Again, that was in our last Medicare bill. Republicans insisted on it. They pushed it through. Right now, Medicare cannot bargain with the large pharmaceutical companies to bid down the prices. Why? Because they are paying in the bill and they are forbidden to do so. What kind of sense does that make? The Veterans' Administration can bargain down the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies but not Medicare. That makes no sense. One of the first things a President Kerry would do is get rid of that ban and let Medicare get the price of drugs down for the elderly. Secondly, a President Kerry will say we have to allow for the reimportation of drugs from Canada. We have a free-trade agreement with them on cars, clothes, pens, ties, and everything else, except for one thing--drugs. Well, it is time we have a free-trade agreement on drugs and let us reimport drugs from Canada. The third part of the Kerry program is to provide a tax credit for small businesses--up to 50 percent--so they can carry a health care policy on their workers. That is so important for us in rural America, where most of our people work for small business. Fourth, Senator Kerry says we ought to open the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to everybody in America. That is a good program. It allows you to pick your doctor and hospital, and it allows you to change your plan if you would like to do so. It is a great program. I ought to know, I am in it. So is President Bush. So is Vice President Cheney. So is every Senator on this floor. If it is good enough for us, it ought to be good enough for the American people. The last thing in the Kerry program for health care is to double the National Health Service Corps to get more doctors, physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, and others serving in our rural and underserved areas and to increase the number of community health centers in America. So while I am proud John Kerry has a forward-looking, comprehensive health care plan that will be meaningful, that will reduce drug prices, and that will get affordable, reliable health care to the American people, President Bush is silent. Again, President Bush's health care plan is simple: Pray you don't get sick. That is not enough. We need better than that.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the tax conference report before us is a purposeful mix of good and bad. On one side we have the content of the bill that is broadly supported on both sides of the aisle. There are few who disagree with the considerable majority of the conference report's provisions. Increasing the child credit, reducing marriage penalty provisions and the extension of the child credit do help the middle class and those of modest means. I do think it was unfortunate that the measure did not adjust the child credit so more modest income working families could benefit more fully from the provision. We do need to fix the alternative minimum tax. This bill kicks the ball down the street for another year. The 2001 tax bill effectively doubled the number of taxpayers impacted by the tax once a short term band-aid expired. So, here we have another 1-year band-aid. This is a growing problem with growing cost estimates to fix it. The measure extends the R&D credit, the work opportunity tax credit, the wind and biomass credit, all of which I support. Clearly, these credits should be extended for longer periods of time. With this bill, they are only effective for another 14 months, until the end of next year. That is hardly good tax policy. Year after year, the Congress extends these provisions for a short time, not providing a longer term, which would allow business to plan. However, the biggest problem with this conference report is that it is not paid for: $146 billion in additional spending with no offsetting of that cost. This bill comes to the Senate in an abusive fashion. The majority decided to use a very narrow measure in conference and hijacked it to avoid the Senate floor on this far larger package of tax provisions. The majority knew that the provisions were very popular and would pass. But they also knew that there might be a majority in the Senate that would like to see the provisions paid for. By not paying for them, by using this conference mechanism, we add to the government's skyrocketing debt. This year we have a record $422 billion deficit. The one word that describes the Bush tax policy of never wanting to offset the cost of tax cuts is reckless. When President Bush came into office we were on track to completely eliminate the publicly held debt by 2009. Now, by 2009, we expect--and I am using OMB's own figures--to pay the equivalent of about $1,000 in interest on the debt for every man, women and child in America. It is weakening America. It is making us less able to meet the needs of our growing elderly population and our children. Under a new CBO document released today, we see projections of deficits of more than $300 billion every year if we follow President Bush's policies, and we see deficits above the current levels a decade from now. Going into the future, with the retirement of the baby boomers, things only get worse. What we are seeing is a growing debt tax. The interest on those bonds must always be paid, paid by our children and grandchildren. One solution, I think we must consider is hard and fast paygo rules that were in effect through the 1990s that helped us to reduce the deficits. That is, simply, that if we lower taxes we need to pay for it by raising other taxes or cut spending. If we increase mandatory spending, we must cut other spending or raise taxes. If we do not have serious, enforceable paygo rules, given the abuse of the conference process we have just seen, we should not allow future Finance Committee measures to go to conference. The only exception should be where clear public agreements are reached that a conference report will be fully paid for.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katie Callahan of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I need 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the chaos in Iraq gets worse with every week that goes by. Many key cities are now under the control of the insurgents. Virtually every day we see car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being attacked and killed at an alarming and escalating rate. But if we listen to the President, what we hear is sugar-coated happy talk. The President says: We're making progress. We're making progress. He says we have a strong government in Iraq headed by Mr. Allawi. He says that because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, democracy is spreading ``like a sunrise.'' Well, the President may have been a cheerleader in college, but we need more than cheerleading now. Let's be clear: President Bush misled us into this war, and he is misleading us today about where we stand in Iraq. His misguided, mismanaged war has become a quagmire with ever-rising body counts and no end in sight. Over the weekend, a host of Republican Senators stepped forward to urge the President to face the facts and at long last to be open and honest with the American people. On Sunday, Senator Hagel of Nebraska said: The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq. Senator Richard Lugar, distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, criticized what he called ``incompetence in the administration'' that has resulted in a failed Iraq reconstruction effort. Senator John McCain said: We're not winning. Senator Lindsey Graham said that we need to be ``more honest about how difficult it will be'' in Iraq. Ironically, the President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, warned against the folly of invading and occupying Iraq. On February 28, 1999, speaking to a group of Desert Storm veterans at Fort Myer, VA, the former President told them: Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it, you guys could have done it, could you have been there in 48 hours-- and then what? Then the first President Bush continued: Whose life would be on my hands as commander-in-chief because I unilaterally went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. That was former President Bush in 1999. Of course, we heard the same prophetic warnings from Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and other foreign policy experts. But this President Bush and his partner Dick Cheney thought they knew better. So now the disaster that Bush 41 warned against has become a reality under Bush 43. It is painfully clear that President George W. Bush's wrong choices--in particular, the botched hunt for Osama bin Laden, the invasion of Iraq based on false justifications, the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the alienation of our friends and the world--have been profoundly destructive to America's national interest. They have damaged our traditional alliances. They have undermined our moral authority, and they have all but destroyed our credibility. Worst of all, the actions of this administration have had the perverse effect of encouraging, inciting, multiplying the terrorist threat. Exhibit A is Osama bin Laden himself. It has been more than 3 years since the President pledged to ``smoke him out'' of his cave. But Mr. Bush did not smoke out Osama bin Laden. Instead, the Bush administration got massively distracted by its obsession with Saddam Hussein. These days, the days responsible for the murder of some 3,000 Americans on 9/11 is ``Osama bin forgotten.'' In a press conference Secretary Rumsfeld had on September 10 of this year, he mixed up Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden twice. Here is a quote from our Secretary of Defense: Saddam Hussein, if he is alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught and we have not seen him on video since 2001. Well, Saddam Hussein, as John Stewart pointed out on ``The Daily Show'' last night, is in prison. But he said that twice about Saddam Hussein. You see, in their minds--in Rumsfeld's mind, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are the same person. He cannot quite distinguish them. The problem is Osama bin Laden has not forgotten us. He and his followers remain as dangerous today as on September 11, 2001. In July, the administration issued a dire warning that bin Laden and his chief lieutenants were directing an al-Qaida effort to launch a catastrophic attack in the U.S. before the election. There is broader evidence that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has incited, encouraged, and stepped up the recruitment of terrorists around the world. In April, the State Department issued its annual report on terrorism, claiming a big drop in terrorist incidents--and success in the war on terrorism. But, in June, the State Department acknowledged this report was grossly incorrect. The State Department acknowledged that, in fact, twice as many people died in terrorist attacks in 2003, and terrorism around the world has increased significantly. The objective statistical record is clear: As a consequence of choices made by George W. Bush, America is weaker, America is less secure, Americans traveling abroad are less secure, America is more vulnerable. And the professionals--the men and women on the front lines--know this is true. Earlier this year, the Army War College published a report that concluded, in so many words, that the administration has bungled the war on terrorism. The report called the war in Iraq ``unnecessary.'' It said Iraq ``was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al-Qaida.'' As a result of this detour, says the report, the U.S. Army is ``near the breaking point.'' Who can disagree with these findings? With our military tied down in Iraq indefinitely, unable to respond to real threats, America is weaker, not stronger. We are less secure, not more secure. We are more vulnerable, not less vulnerable. I was struck, several weeks ago, by a statement from one of our colleagues, Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska. Mr. Bereuter is vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a senior Republican member of the House International Relations Committee. Congressman Bereuter was a strong supporter of the House resolution authorizing the President to go to war. But in a letter to constituents, he now says the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and ``it was a mistake to launch that military action.'' He said, ``We are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.'' Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will close by saying America is more vulnerable, not less; and we need straight answers from this administration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Bishop Gregory Palmer to the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. It has now been over a year since Bishop Palmer was officially nominated on September 16, 2003. On that date, the Senate officially transmitted our paperwork to the White House. The reason I recommended this distinguished spiritual leader for this important position at the U.S. Institute of Peace is that I strongly believe that Bishop Palmer would work to promote a just peace in the world. I don't think that there is anyone in this Chamber who would disagree that we need more advocates for peace in this time of international crisis. I know Bishop Palmer well. He is a native of Philadelphia, PA. He graduated from The George Washington University and received a master's in divinity from Duke University. His father is a minister in Philadelphia. Bishop Palmer came to Des Moines, IA, on September 1, 2000, and he has had a profound influence in our State ever since. Bishop Palmer has had a distinguished career of service. He has taught at the pastor's school in Burundi, and serves on the Senegalese Task Force of the Global Ministries. He also served as President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance. In March of this year, Bishop Palmer received the 10th Annual Bishop Maurice J. Dingman Peace Award. This award recognized Bishop Palmer's commitment to peace and social justice. The award was presented by the Iowa Catholic Peace Ministry. One of the ways Bishop Palmer has turned Scripture into deeds is by starting the Matthew 25 Ministry throughout Iowa. This ministry heeds the call of Matthew 25:31-46 to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. Bishop Palmer has provided services to our Iowa communities most in need--from English classes for immigrants to soup kitchens for the hungry. These laudable acts, in my view, are the works of a man truly committed to fostering peace and social justice. I could go on and on at great length about Bishop Palmer's good works, but I know that my floor time is limited. It is, however, very clear that Bishop Palmer would make an outstanding addition to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace; therefore, I was deeply disappointed and surprised that Bishop Palmer's nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace has been stalled at the White House for over a year now, and his name was not included in the nominations to be considered by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I am hopeful that the White House will reconsider and send his nomination to the HELP Committee before Wednesday, tomorrow, when we are due to act upon other nominations. We have one nomination that has come down to be renominated to the U.S. Institute of Peace. I am certain this person will have no problem being renominated. But I was very surprised, as I said, and disappointed that Bishop Palmer's name, which has been at the White House for 1 year now--1 year his nomination has been sitting there, and I know of no opposition to Bishop Palmer. As I said, he is head of the Methodist Church for the entire State of Iowa. He is known nationally and internationally. I cannot think of a more qualified person to be on the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace. I am quite upset with this, and I hope that the White House will reconsider this nomination. It would not take but just about half an hour to transmit his name here, and I wish they would do that before we meet tomorrow so we can report his name out and get Bishop Palmer on the board of directors as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sonja Loges of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while Congress was in recess, the news media have reported several important studies in the field of wellness and disease prevention. Collectively, these studies are another loud wake-up call. It is time for fundamental change in our approach to health care in the United States. I have been saying for years that currently we have a sick care system, not a health care system. We have a system that, if you get sick, you get care. But there is precious little support, incentives or otherwise, to keep you healthy in the first place. We are paying very dearly for this foolish choice of having a sick care system rather than a health care system. The latest evidence comes from a new study by health economist Kenneth Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe found it cost $200 billion more in 2000 to treat diseases and conditions in this country than it did in 1987. Just 15 health conditions accounted for a whopping 56 percent of the growth in spending between 1987 and 2000. Indeed, a closer look shows that just five conditions accounted for one-third of the $200 billion increase: heart disease, pulmonary conditions, mental disorders, cancer, and hypertension. What do all these conditions have in common? In many if not most cases, these conditions are preventable. The Thorpe study also confirmed that chronic conditions, which are responsible for more than 75 percent of all health care expenditures, cost tens of billions of dollars more than just two decades ago. Diabetes is one of those chronic conditions responsible for the explosion in health care costs. Yet experts agree that the impact of diabetes can be dramatically reduced by encouraging treatment guidelines on diet, exercise, and other preventive measures. The same is true for other chronic conditions. By emphasizing prevention and by following best practices guidelines, we can dramatically reduce health spending. It is alarming to me that many health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first that does not live longer than their parents' generation. Let me repeat that. Health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first generation that does not live longer than their parents' generation. As many children return to school this month, there is fresh evidence that we are failing them in terms of wellness and disease prevention. Consider a study released this week by the National Institute for Health Care Research and Educational Foundation. The study found that only 16 percent of kindergarten programs meet recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for daily physical education. Instead, about 60 percent of kindergarten programs offer physical education less than twice a week; 13 percent offer physical education less than once a week. On average, grade school kids spend less than an hour a week in PE classes. As many of my colleagues know, because of the No Child Left Behind Act and its obsession with testing and preparing for tests, many schools are eliminating recess in the elementary years and further neglecting PE in the middle and senior high school years. Some new elementary schools are being built without playgrounds. Make no mistake; this neglect of physical education has severe consequences. Obesity has nearly tripled since 1970, and about 16 percent of children are now overweight. However, the study I just mentioned suggested that adding 1 hour of physical education per week could decrease the occurrence of overweight by as much as 10 percent. The study also found that schools with low-income or minority students have a greater likelihood than their peers to have no physical education in kindergarten. This is deeply troubling as these groups are especially at risk for obesity. On a related note, we received further evidence last month about the potential risk of diabetes and obesity associated with soft drink consumption. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that women who drink at least one serving of nondiet soda or fruit punch per day have a greater risk of gaining weight and developing type 2 diabetes than women who do not. Women who consume one or more sweetened drinks per day are 83 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who drink less than one serving per month. During the period of the study, women who drank at least one serving of sweetened drinks per day gained an average of 17 pounds, compared with an increase of only 6 pounds for women who drank less than one serving per month. So why in the world are we allowing the proliferation of vending machines filled with unhealthy foods and soft drinks in our schools? We are sending all the wrong signals to our kids. We put in all these vending machines with soft drinks up and down the hallways in our schools. It is saying to our kids, not only is that allowable, it is acceptable, it is encouraged that you have a soft drink during the day. How many parents know--how many people know? Not even parents, how many young people know that one 20-ounce soft drink, sweetened soft drink, Coke, Pepsi, RC, whatever, one 20-ounce drink--that is what you get out of the vending machines now--contains the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar? I asked someone, you get a 20-ounce Coke or Pepsi--I don't mean to pick on one or the other, but when you get a 20-ounce Coke, you think nothing about drinking it. What if someone measured out 16 teaspoons of sugar into a cup and said: Here, eat this. You would think they were crazy. But they will drink a 20-ounce soft drink that has the same thing in it. And you wonder why people are getting diabetes. The good news this month is that an additional four States will be offering the Free Fruit and Vegetable Program I started in the farm bill in order to encourage healthier eating habits at the earliest possible age. The bad news is that thousands of schools are continuing to make room for vending machines selling candy, soda pop, and other junk food on school grounds. We are missing a prime opportunity to reduce the health risks facing our children by not emphasizing prevention, healthy lifestyles. A new study published in the Pediatric Journal found that 10 percent of pediatric patients were obese; however, only half of those patients were noted by the physician to be obese. What this means is we are missing a critical opportunity to diagnose obesity and intervene at the earliest stage--during childhood--when lifestyle changes can be easier to make. We also have new information from the American Cancer Society. More than a dozen cancers are linked with obesity, and the American Cancer Society estimates that of the 563,000 cancer deaths each year, excess weight is a factor in more than 16 percent of the cases. While overall cancer death rates have decreased over the last few years, we know now that obese men and women are at a major increased risk for colorectal cancer. A postmenopausal woman's risk of breast cancer increases by 30 percent if she is overweight and by 50 percent if she is obese. We also have new information about high blood pressure, which is a major contributor to heart disease and stroke. It has skyrocketed over the past decade with almost one-third of adults suffering from hypertension. From 1988 to 1994, there was a 30- percent increase in the incidence of high blood pressure. We know that much of this increase is due to the rise in obesity. On a variety of fronts, August was not a month of progress for those of us who care about wellness and disease prevention. The various studies I have cited tell us that we are still heading in the wrong direction. Much work needs to be done to transform America's sick care system into a true health care system--a system that keeps us out of the hospital in the first place. As I have said, again and again, it is time for a new paradigm in American health care, a prevention paradigm. Again, we have a sick care system in this country and we need a genuine health care system focused on wellness and prevention and keeping people out of the hospital in the first place. To that end, I have introduced legislation, the Help America Act, also known as the Healthier Lifestyles and Prevention Act, S. 2158. And today the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee has reported our bill for fiscal year 2005. This year's bill has especially strong emphasis on wellness and prevention programs. For example, we will be providing $440 million for research at the National Institutes of Health into the causes and cures of obesity. That is a 10-percent increase over last year. We have included more than $50 million in grants to States to fund programs that address nutrition, physical activity, and obesity. We will provide more than $114 million for tobacco prevention and cessation activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in our society today. Our committee allocated $35 million for public health research at CDC. This year we are encouraging the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to pay particular attention to research on business-based wellness programs for employees. We want to identify and disseminate the best practices in this area, and we have asked the CDC to develop a model wellness program for businesses. Our appropriations bill also includes $75 million for the Carol White Physical Education for Progress Program, otherwise known as the PEP Program. This provides grants to school districts to expand physical education opportunities for K-to-12 students. Again, bear in mind, as I said, the average public school student gets less than 1 hour of physical education per week, and many get none at all. Our appropriations bill funds a new School Mental Health Services Program. This will train public school personnel to recognize early warning signs of mental illness, and it will expand student activity to high-quality mental health services. I would like to add that the bill provides $2 million to support implementation of the YMCA's new Activate America initiative, which is encouraging cities to develop communitywide approaches to wellness and disease prevention. I am most grateful to the National YMCA for their great leadership in disease prevention, wellness, and health promotion. I am also pleased that our capital city of Des Moines, IA was selected as one of the first cities to participate in this program. I also want to compliment and commend my chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for his great leadership in getting our bill together and getting it through our subcommittee. All of the items I have mentioned that we are providing for wellness and prevention we have worked on together in a true bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Specter for his leadership and for working to make sure we fund these programs for wellness and prevention. To sum it up, we are making some progress in advancing a broad, comprehensive wellness agenda here in Congress. With all of the political bickering here on Capitol Hill people sometimes wonder if we are accomplishing anything. The Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill takes real, concrete steps to address problems such as obesity and chronic disease--problems that people care deeply about. Again, I salute the hard work and leadership of Chairman Specter. He too cares passionately about issues of wellness and disease prevention. He too realizes that our current sick care system which gives short shrift to prevention is leading us off a cliff. I am optimistic. I know we will not get everything done this year. But hopefully we will make progress and we will make more progress next year. What I sense is growing support from both sides of the aisle for a new emphasis on wellness and prevention. I am more and more confident about the prospects for passing the Help America Act in the next Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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