Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his question. Succinctly, what was done and what more could be done--Ms. Plame had a number of assets and contacts, people in other parts of the world who were giving her information valuable to our national security. These people have been put at risk.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on a matter of utmost importance to the national security of the United States, I want to point out that it has now been almost a full year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by columnist Robert Novak. In fact, it has been 359 days, 1 week short of a year. Next Wednesday will be 1 year exactly. It has been 10 months, exactly 285 days, since the Washington Post reported that a senior administration official said that two ``senior White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent.'' We still do not know the identity of those ``senior White House officials'' responsible for this destructive leak. It is simply astounding to me that as I stand here, the person or persons responsible for destroying the 20 years and millions of dollars invested in this agent and for jeopardizing the lives of other agents in the field could at this very moment still be exercising a senior decision making role in this administration. In late December, I welcomed the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for Illinois, as a special prosecutor to investigate this matter. I don't understand why it took almost 6 months for this appointment to be made, but from all reports I have heard, Mr. Fitzgerald has been conducting a very aggressive investigation over the past 190 days. But what I still don't understand is how this administration can claim to be cooperating with this investigation when the only public statement the President has made on this matter was to say: I don't know if we're going to find out [who] the senior administration official [is]. Of course, that statement was an obvious wink and a nod to the leaker or leakers. The subtle message seems to be, don't worry. Sit tight. We can stonewall this and get it behind us. So while I welcome the investigation of the special prosecutor, I find it hard to believe that the President and the administration are serious about getting to the bottom of this grave breach of national security. If they were serious, they would have resolved this matter immediately, without the aid of a grand jury, subpoenas, experienced prosecutors, polygraphs, and, most likely by now, millions of dollars of expense. The President has never demanded answers from his White House staff. I remind my colleagues that the pivotal Washington Post article was published on a Sunday in late September. On Monday morning, the President could have, and should have, demanded answers from his staff. He could have, and should have, called his senior staff members into the Oval Office, put them under oath, and asked them one by one if they were involved in the leak of the CIA agent's name to the media. He could have, and should have, laid down the law and resolved this matter immediately. Indeed, that is exactly the way a President who truly wanted to identify the leakers would have acted. But President Bush took no such action. Instead, the President joked about the leak with reporters. Judging from his statements, he doesn't seem all that eager to find and punish the people responsible. He said he has no idea whether the leakers will ever be identified. The disclosure of the identity of the agent, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA operative represents an extremely damaging breach of national security. In her 20-year career, we now know, she operated with ``nonofficial cover,'' meaning she had no diplomatic immunity. Effectively, her only defense was a painstakingly created and maintained cover. She worked gathering human intelligence, the kind of intelligence we have heard over and over since September 11, 2001, is so critical to fighting terrorism. She ran agents and worked closely with other undercover operatives and contacts. These people were also potentially placed in jeopardy and exposed to danger by the disclosure. One publication reported that after reading of her own blown cover, Ms. Plame immediately had to make a list of all of the contacts and associates of hers who could be in jeopardy. I only hope when Mr. Fitzgerald discovers the identity of the leaker, that person is forced to see this list and be confronted with the full extent of their betrayal--yes, betrayal--of this country and its citizens. That is what it is. More important, Mr. Fitzgerald needs to discover how the information on Ms. Plame's status came into the hands of these leakers, or senior White House officials. Is someone in the CIA responsible for identifying Ms. Plame as a means of discrediting her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson? Is someone in the National Security Council responsible? We cannot stop at identifying the individual or individuals who leaked her identity and her status to the press. We also need to identify the person or persons who gave this classified information to the leakers in the first place. This is about discovering those in our Government who have so little respect for the value of our intelligence assets that they are willing to use those assets as political weapons. Both the President and the Vice President have been questioned by the special prosecutor's office in this matter, but almost a year after the leak we still don't know who is responsible. Valerie Plame was a seasoned covert operator, we are told. She performed the kind of human intelligence gathering that is crucial to our national security. So why was her identity compromised? Why was the identity of a valuable intelligence asset treated so cavalierly and recklessly by senior officials in the White House? Was it done as part of an ongoing effort to discredit and retaliate against critics of the administration--especially anyone who dared to suggest that the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq ranged from flawed to fabricated? Let me recap. Since 2002, the administration's top officials, including Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and the President himself, have all claimed Saddam Hussein was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, and that he tried to buy uranium from the nation of Niger. These claims persisted despite conflicting intelligence reports, including one by Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ambassador Wilson, we later learned, is Valerie Plame's husband. Ambassador Wilson was sent on a fact finding mission by the CIA to Niger. After an investigation, he found no evidence to support the claim that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. Still, the President made the Niger claim in his State of the Union message. A few months later, the New York Times published Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece, which questioned the President's assertion and indeed refuted the President's assertion that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. It was after that--at least in this Senator's opinion--that in order to discredit and punish Wilson, two senior White House officials leaked to the press the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact that she was a covert CIA operative. In doing so they broke the law and undercut our national security in time of war. One day Ms. Plame was a valued human intelligence asset; the next day she was political fodder. What guarantees does any other intelligence agent have he or she could not be next? It is not enough to find out who leaked the names; we have to find out how senior White House officials were given the classified information about Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent. Who did this dastardly deed? Who betrayed our country and our intelligence asset? It is not only Ms. Plame, it is all of the other CIA agents we have who do not have diplomatic immunity and are operating undercover, collecting human intelligence for the safety of our country. What is there to give them assurance they are not the next Valerie Plame? What is there to give them the assurance they won't be fingered at some time in the future? What happened here is not only confined to Ms. Plame, bad enough as that is. It sends all of the wrong signals to our CIA operatives that they could be next. Some future administration could finger them if they disagree or if their husband or wife, brother or sister, or maybe a friend, disagreed with official administration policy; they could be outted. And what does it say to all of the contacts these people we have developed and nurtured over years and years, in countries where their lives would be at risk if they were identified as giving intelligence to our CIA people? What assurance do these networks have they won't be uncovered similarly at some time in the future? I have waited, and we have all waited to get answers; 359 days is too long. One year is too long for this to drag on. It is time for the administration to come clean. It is time for those who leaked Ms. Plame's identity to be identified and to suffer the consequences. It is also time to find out who gave them this highly classified information, how it was they came to have the name of Ms. Plame. Only a thorough airing of this, only prosecuting those who were involved, finding out who gave this name to these people in the White House, making sure they no longer have positions, wherever they are, in the National Security Council or in the CIA--only then will we send a clear signal we are not going to let this happen again. We must send a clear signal to those who would betray this country in order to get political retribution against somebody who disagreed with an administration's position. Only then will we be able to send a clear signal that these kinds of actions will never be tolerated.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I want to remember Ken Robinson, a long time friend and community leader. Ken passed away on Friday, April 30, 2004 at the age of 89 years. I would like to pay tribute to the many contributions he has made to his community, to his profession, and to this country. I have known Ken and his wife Mary Louise, both as personal friends and as the owners of the Bayard News, the Bagley Gazette, as well as several other Iowa newspapers. In 1940, he was one of the founders of the Bayard News which merged with the Bagley Gazette in 1973 to become the Bayard News Gazette. They received many awards over the years for their publishing including the National Newspaper Association's Amos Award which is given to a person who is considered to have done the most for the newspaper industry as well as for his own community. When is came to being an advocate for publishers of newspapers in rural areas, Ken was the best. He was fearless, and nothing deterred him from approaching public officials, including the Post Master General or the President of the United States, to bring to their attention problems experienced by his newspaper readers due to delayed rural delivery service or postage price increases. He was a crusader in the best sense of the word when there was an issue that needed to be fixed. He came to Washington, DC every year to participate in the annual conference sponsored by the National Newspaper Association. Ken was the one to ask the hard questions of the officials who would speak at the conference, holding their feet to the fire to follow up on commitments. At one association conference session at the White House, Iowa Newspaper Association Director Bill Monroe remembers worrying about Ken and why he had not shown up in time for the meeting. Just before the meeting began, Ken came out of the Oval Office just before President Reagan came out to meet the group. He had been in the office promoting Bayard's sesquicentennial and had sold President Reagan a raffle ticket. Ken also served as mayor of Bayard for 24 years, as a State representative, and was active in many organizations, including the League of Iowa Municipalities, the Democratic Party, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and the board of Iowa Public Television. He was an active and loyal alumnus of Drake University from where he graduated with a major in economics. During his college years, he was managing editor of the Drake Times Delphic where he primarily wrote sports articles. Ken was born near Panora, IA in 1914. In his junior year of high school, he was stricken with polio. As a person with a disability, long before the ADA was passed, Ken found ways to overcome barriers to achieve his long-time dream of owning and publishing a newspaper. He not only achieved his dream, but with his passion for justice and his impatience with inaction, he became a strong voice for common sense and fairness. As a civic leader, he had the kind of ``can-do'' attitude that motivates others to get involved to get things done. Who knows what Ken might have achieved if the ADA had been implemented while he was involved in so many aspects of community life. In this spirit, Ken was the first recipient of the Easter Seals of America Award to honor a person with a disability who had provided outstanding service to government and to community. Ken and Mary Louise have been great friends to me and I will never forget them. People such as Ken and Mary are an inspiration to us all. They are among the leaders who are the fabric that gives shape and color to our rural communities. They have spent their life making their community, State, and Nation better places to live, work and raise families. And for that, we are forever grateful.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in tribute to Mattie Stepanek, a young man who accomplished so much, and sadly, was taken from us this past Tuesday, June 22 at the age of 13 years. Like his three older siblings, Mattie died from complications of a rare form of muscular dystrophy. As anyone can testify who has seen Mattie on television, he was one brilliant person, and he had a big heart to match. At the age of three, he began writing poetry to cope with the death of his brother, writing messages of hope and inspiration, and selling millions of books. Mattie quickly became one of the most widely read poets in recent memory, and three of his volumes were on the New York Times' best-seller list. I would like to share one of Mattie's most inspirational poems. It is titled, ``On Being a Champion.'' ``A champion is a winner, A hero . . . Someone who never gives up Even when the going gets rough. A champion is a member of A winning team . . . Someone who overcomes challenges Even when it requires creative solutions A champion is an optimist, A hopeful spirit . . . Someone who plays the game, Even when the game is called life . . . Especially when the game is called life. There can be a champion in each of us, If we live as a winner, If we live as a member of the team, If we live with a hopeful spirit, For life.'' Mattie was a champion in every sense of the word and his poetry won the hearts of many admirers, from Oprah Winfrey to former President Carter. But famous or not, it seemed to matter little to Mattie, who said, ``It's our inner beauty, our message, the songs in our hearts.'' Mattie embodied the unlimited potential within all of us, and I hope that Mattie's mother, Judi Stepanek, will find some strength in knowing that Mattie inspired and touched so many people. We offer Judi a special place in our hearts, knowing there is nothing harder than losing a child. And we pray that she be given the strength, courage and wisdom needed to get through this difficult time. Mattie believed his mission in life was to ``spread peace in the world.'' And, today, I say to Mattie and to all who loved him: Mission accomplished.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department of Defense, DOD, Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. Almost 12 years ago, when I looked into the issue of breast cancer research, I discovered that barely $90 million in Federal funds was spent on breast cancer research. So I joined with Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-NY, on legislation to dedicate specific money from the DOD budget for breast cancer research. The legislation passed and overnight it doubled Federal funding for breast cancer research. Since then, funding for breast cancer research has been included in the Defense Department budget every year. Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens both the existing funding and the current structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally directed cancer research programs into one account and then reduces the total funding available. This will inevitably lead to a major cut in funding for this important program. The DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been an unqualified success in providing innovative approaches to breast cancer prevention, detection and treatment. Over the past several years, we have made a great deal of progress against breast cancer, but there is still a long way to go. More than 258,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer and another 40,000 deaths are likely to result from this deadly cancer. Now is not the time to jeopardize a successful program that is critical to winning the battle against breast cancer. As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 goes to conference, I plan to work to preserve the current structure and funding for this critical breast cancer research program. I urge my colleagues to support the language passed in the House and support a $150 million earmark for the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and others to introduce the Assistive Technology Act of 2004. Assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunication are so critical to the lives of people with disabilities. An NOD/Harris poll released today shows that 35 percent of individuals with disabilities surveyed indicated that they would not be able to take care of themselves at home without assistive technology. Over a quarter of individuals with disabilities reported that they would not be able to get around outside of their homes. Assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunication also provide opportunities in education, employment and civic and social participation that would not otherwise be available to some individuals with disabilities. To quote the National Council on Disability--``For Americans without disabilities, technology makes things easier. For Americans with disabilities, technology makes things possible.'' The Assistive Technology Act that we introduce today builds upon the successes of this law, dating back to 1988. The state Assistive Technology programs have been very effective in providing information, training, and technical assistance to a wide array of individuals in their states, including people with disabilities, their families, educators, health care professionals and others. The Assistive Technology Act has also authorized alternate finance programs that have offered low interest loans and other financing to people with disabilities who otherwise could not access the funds needed to buy their assistive technology. The most recent data available, FY 02, indicates that the programs are making a substantial difference in their states. In that year, there were 92,000 equipment demonstrations provided, 38,000 devices loaned to individuals with disabilities and over 6,000 devices exchanged or recycled. Also over 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 needed information to a wide array of individuals, answering 151,000 requests for assistance and training over 172,000 people. In this reauthorization, we strengthen this successful program and provide authorization for increased appropriations to carry out the many activities that are needed in the states. We emphasize programs that will improve access to assistive technology devices and also increase attention to some federal priorities, including improving education, promoting community integration, and increasing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. While there are many important initiatives in this bill, I will highlight a few of the most significant. First, the bill authorizes a minimum of $500,000 for each state program and includes an authorization of 36 million dollars in 2005 which would allow each state to receive that minimum. These funds will be used to support all of the activities specified in the law. The bill also strengthens some of the core functions of the state assistive technology programs, focusing training and technical assistance to ensure statewide access to information and an emphasis on skills development and technical training to improve service planning for individuals with disabilities. It further requires States focus their efforts on one of three target populations. These populations include 1. elementary and secondary school students, providers and related personnel; 2. adult service provider clients, providers and related personnel; and 3. employees, employment providers, and related personnel. States will be required to focus their energies on service planning for one of these populations so we can ensure that assistive technology is getting out to where it is needed most--in the schools, on the job and in the community. The Senate has recently passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Workforce Investment Act and we continue to be concerned about implementation of the ADA and the Olmstead decision. This targeted effort aligns the Assistive Technology Act with these other initiatives. The bill includes provisions designed to increase access to assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunications by requiring that assistive technology programs operate equipment loan, device reutilization, device demonstration, and financing systems. The bill also seeks to improve information about service providers and vendors of assistive technology and accessible information technology. Because individuals with disabilities still experience significantly fewer employment opportunities than individuals without disabilities, the bill places an emphasis on educating and targeting 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 employers and others with information regarding assistive technology. For the first time, the bill addresses the need to coordinate state program activities with the businesses that develop and produce much of the assistive technology and accessible information technology. The bill authorizes a project of national significance in research and development and authorizes the Secretary to conduct a detailed assessment of the assistive technology industry. The bill also recognizes the ongoing contribution of protection and advocacy services in making assistive technology available to individuals with disabilities and increases minimum authorization levels for this important function. Iowa has had a very successful advocacy program, which will 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 due to the hard work of the many stakeholders that participated. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, and his staff, particularly Aaron Bishop and Annie White, for their work on this bipartisan initiative. I also want to recognize the work of Senators Kennedy, Roberts, Reed and Warner and their staff members, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Jennifer Swenson, Elyse Wasch, Erica Swanson, and John Robinson because this has truly been a collaborative and bipartisan effort to reauthorize this important legislation. 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 have 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 significant disability legislation. Just as the ADA, IDEA and other bills have been bipartisan, so is this Assistive Technology Act of 2004. I look forward to moving ahead and getting it enacted into law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and others to introduce the Assistive Technology Act of 2004. Assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunication are so critical to the lives of people with disabilities. An NOD/Harris poll released today shows that 35 percent of individuals with disabilities surveyed indicated that they would not be able to take care of themselves at home without assistive technology. Over a quarter of individuals with disabilities reported that they would not be able to get around outside of their homes. Assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunication also provide opportunities in education, employment and civic and social participation that would not otherwise be available to some individuals with disabilities. To quote the National Council on Disability--``For Americans without disabilities, technology makes things easier. For Americans with disabilities, technology makes things possible.'' The Assistive Technology Act that we introduce today builds upon the successes of this law, dating back to 1988. The state Assistive Technology programs have been very effective in providing information, training, and technical assistance to a wide array of individuals in their states, including people with disabilities, their families, educators, health care professionals and others. The Assistive Technology Act has also authorized alternate finance programs that have offered low interest loans and other financing to people with disabilities who otherwise could not access the funds needed to buy their assistive technology. The most recent data available, FY 02, indicates that the programs are making a substantial difference in their states. In that year, there were 92,000 equipment demonstrations provided, 38,000 devices loaned to individuals with disabilities and over 6,000 devices exchanged or recycled. Also over 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 needed information to a wide array of individuals, answering 151,000 requests for assistance and training over 172,000 people. In this reauthorization, we strengthen this successful program and provide authorization for increased appropriations to carry out the many activities that are needed in the states. We emphasize programs that will improve access to assistive technology devices and also increase attention to some federal priorities, including improving education, promoting community integration, and increasing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. While there are many important initiatives in this bill, I will highlight a few of the most significant. First, the bill authorizes a minimum of $500,000 for each state program and includes an authorization of 36 million dollars in 2005 which would allow each state to receive that minimum. These funds will be used to support all of the activities specified in the law. The bill also strengthens some of the core functions of the state assistive technology programs, focusing training and technical assistance to ensure statewide access to information and an emphasis on skills development and technical training to improve service planning for individuals with disabilities. It further requires States focus their efforts on one of three target populations. These populations include 1. elementary and secondary school students, providers and related personnel; 2. adult service provider clients, providers and related personnel; and 3. employees, employment providers, and related personnel. States will be required to focus their energies on service planning for one of these populations so we can ensure that assistive technology is getting out to where it is needed most--in the schools, on the job and in the community. The Senate has recently passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Workforce Investment Act and we continue to be concerned about implementation of the ADA and the Olmstead decision. This targeted effort aligns the Assistive Technology Act with these other initiatives. The bill includes provisions designed to increase access to assistive technology and accessible information technology and telecommunications by requiring that assistive technology programs operate equipment loan, device reutilization, device demonstration, and financing systems. The bill also seeks to improve information about service providers and vendors of assistive technology and accessible information technology. Because individuals with disabilities still experience significantly fewer employment opportunities than individuals without disabilities, the bill places an emphasis on educating and targeting 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 employers and others with information regarding assistive technology. For the first time, the bill addresses the need to coordinate state program activities with the businesses that develop and produce much of the assistive technology and accessible information technology. The bill authorizes a project of national significance in research and development and authorizes the Secretary to conduct a detailed assessment of the assistive technology industry. The bill also recognizes the ongoing contribution of protection and advocacy services in making assistive technology available to individuals with disabilities and increases minimum authorization levels for this important function. Iowa has had a very successful advocacy program, which will 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 due to the hard work of the many stakeholders that participated. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, and his staff, particularly Aaron Bishop and Annie White, for their work on this bipartisan initiative. I also want to recognize the work of Senators Kennedy, Roberts, Reed and Warner and their staff members, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Jennifer Swenson, Elyse Wasch, Erica Swanson, and John Robinson because this has truly been a collaborative and bipartisan effort to reauthorize this important legislation. 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 have 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 significant disability legislation. Just as the ADA, IDEA and other bills have been bipartisan, so is this Assistive Technology Act of 2004. I look forward to moving ahead and getting it enacted into law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Adelman on my staff have the right to the Senate floor for today's business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 includes several provisions intended to improve program integrity and to provide local educational agencies with new tools with which to improve the administration of the school lunch and school breakfast programs. One of the steps that we have taken in this bill is to allow various Federal programs to share information that they may have about a child's income or participation status with local educational agencies so as to enable the local educational agency, using that information, to verify a child's eligibility status for free or reduced-price school lunches or school breakfasts. In most cases, this bill has not amended any laws outside of the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in order to accomplish this goal--with one exception. The bill does amend section 1902(a)(7) of the Social Security Act, a section pertaining to the Medicaid program. This change to Medicaid law allows, at the option of a State, the sharing of Medicaid information with local educational agencies for the purpose of verifying the certification of children for free or reduced price lunches or breakfasts under Federal child nutrition programs. The Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Social Security Act and Medicaid law, has very graciously allowed us to make this change for the purposes of this bill. I thank the Finance Committee for working with our committee to strengthen Federal child nutrition programs. It is my understanding that Medicaid eligibility can be based on a number of factors, some of which may be related to disability or other matters that have nothing to do with verifying income in the School Lunch Program. I want to clarify that the intent of the amendment to Medicaid law contained within the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 is solely for the purpose of verifying income and participation information for School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. It is not the intent of this legislation to allow any other information to be shared. I do not believe that the amendment can be interpreted to allow the sharing of Medicaid information that goes beyond the scope of verifying eligibility for school lunch or school breakfast benefits, but in the interest of being completely crystal clear, I would like to state that, under the amendment to section 1902(a)(7) of the Social Security Act contained in the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, no Medicaid information, except that which is necessary to verify income and eligibility for school lunch or school breakfast participation, may be shared by a State with a local educational agency.

Mr. HARKIN. I am proud of our bipartisan work on the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 and want to thank the chairman for his efforts and leadership. This is a bill that deserves to pass overwhelmingly with tremendous bipartisan support, as it did in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. That it can gain the unanimous support of the entire Senate, as I believe that it will, is to me, a hopeful sign of broad support for initiatives in the interest of our Nation's children. In addition to Chairman Cochran, I thank the staff who have worked on this bill. They may never receive the full credit that they truly deserve, but without them this bill would not have come to fruition. On Senator Cochran's staff, I would like to thank Hunt Shipman, Eric Steiner, Graham Harper, and especially Dave Johnson, who has been with the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for fifteen years. During that time, he has played a key role in strengthening our country's child nutrition and food assistance programs. On my own staff, I would like to single out for thanks the great work of Derek Miller and Susan Keith as well as the Democratic Staff Director, Mark Halverson, who has served me ably for many years. Given the budget constraints that our committee faced in crafting the legislation, I believe that this bill is a very positive step forward in allocating resources wisely. In the United States, we face an unfortunate paradox. On the one hand, the specter of malnutrition and hunger continues to haunt millions of Americans, especially children. At the same time, we are confronted with a grave public health threat in the form of obesity and overweight which are quickly becoming a major threat not just to individuals but to our Nation as a whole. The reauthorization of child nutrition programs affords us an opportunity to tackle both of these issues. This bill does so, although not always to the full extent that I would have preferred. This bill makes many positive changes to fight childhood hunger and deliver federal child nutrition benefits to more children. First, this bill ensures that children who are receiving food stamps will automatically receive school lunches and breakfasts as well. Though States and schools already have the authority and discretion to do this now, not all of them take advantage of this option. The bill before us today clearly makes those children eligible for free school meals--a step that, according to USDA, will help 200,000 additional children have healthy school meals by 2009 and which will also reduce paperwork in local schools and improve program integrity. Parents of preschool-age children face a big challenge of finding safe, affordable day care. This is especially so for low-income families. This bill extends and makes permanent meal assistance to day care centers in which at least 25 percent of enrolled children are low- income. USDA estimates that on an average day approximately 90,000 children will benefit from this meal assistance. The bill also includes a number of important changes in the process to certify students as eligible for free or reduced-price school meals and to verify the accuracy of a small percentage of the applications for free and reduced-price school meals. These changes are designed to make sure that more certifications are completed correctly at the start of the school year. Improving program integrity has always been a duty that this committee has carried out on a bipartisan basis. Maintaining and improving program integrity is critical both to ensuring sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars and to guaranteeing that children who most need child nutrition benefits actually receive them. One of the bill's program integrity measures allows schools to strengthen and simplify the verification process under which the income level of a sample of households must be documented. For example, for the first time, school districts will be able to use Medicaid data to verify household income so school districts won't have to duplicate verification efforts already undertaken in the Medicaid program, and families won't have to document income multiple times. I urge the Secretary, State agencies, and local educational agencies to take full advantage of this new option. In addition, once a student is certified for free or reduced-price meals, that certification will be effective for a full year. Those families that are selected for verification will be able to provide documentation for any point in time between the month prior to application and the time the income documentation is provided. Though the bill itself does not specify an exact time, the Secretary should not narrow the period and should issue guidance instructing local educational authorities to accept as income verification documentation any information pertaining to any point in time within the interval between the month prior to when the school meals application was completed and when the income documentation is provided. The supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children, WIC, provides vouchers to eligible low-income families for specified food items. Recipients redeem these vouchers at local vendors. In recent years, a specialized type of vendor, known as WIC-only stores or supplemental foods vendors, has developed that accepts only WIC vouchers. These vendors do not compete for business on the basis of price, but rather on the service they provide their WIC clientele. This bill includes several important measures designed to contain WIC food costs. The committee report on this bill contains a good deal of information on WIC-only stores and on the provisions intended to address them. However, the bill language on WIC-only cost containment has changed somewhat, and additional clarification may be helpful here. Although the legislative language offers States latitude to design vendor peer groups, competitive price criteria, and maximum reimbursement levels, each State must meet two important cost- containment goals unless exempted by the Secretary. First, each State must ensure that its aggregate WIC food costs are no higher if WIC participants choose to shop at WIC-only stores than if they shop at regular competitive stores. Second, each State must ensure that average prices, referred to as ``average payments per voucher'', in WIC-only stores are no higher than average prices in comparable competitive stores. The bill allows the Secretary to exempt a State from carrying out requirements regarding the peer groups, competitive price criteria, and maximum reimbursement levels if the State does not authorize WIC-only stores or if the WIC-only stores in the State account for less than 5 percent of the State's total WIC food sales. If a State is exempt because the WIC-only stores in the State account for less than 5 percent of the State's total WIC food sales, the State is nonetheless required to ensure that its aggregate food costs are no higher if WIC participants choose to shop at WIC-only stores rather than at regular competitive stores. Because WIC-only stores do not market items outside of the WIC program, the stores' earnings necessarily flow from the WIC program. To ensure that WIC dollars are not spent on non-WIC items, the bill prohibits giveaways of incentive items or other free merchandise by WIC-only stores unless the store can demonstrate that the items or merchandise were obtained at no cost. Although an exemption for food or merchandise of nominal value has been added since the committee approved this bill, the intent of the bill remains to ban giveaways of the kind of items that are currently given away, such as diapers, strollers, bicycles, small kitchen appliances, other household products, and two-for-one offers on WIC food items. Food or merchandise of nominal value is meant to include items of lesser value than these items. In issuing guidance or regulations on this matter, the Secretary must ensure that even offering items of nominal value does not unnecessarily drive up costs in the WIC program. This bill also includes important provisions on infant formula cost containment competitive bidding which will, I believe, ensure that the WIC program continues to benefit from the strength of the competitive marketplace and the infant formula rebates that enable so many children to participate in the WIC program. I am pleased that this bill takes positive steps to enhance child nutrition and to address the epidemic of overweight and obesity in this country as well. Let there be no mistake, poor nutrition early in life lays the foundation for chronic disease and premature death later in life. According to the CDC, poor diet and physical inactivity will soon overtake smoking as the Nation's leading cause of death. In 2000, 400,000 deaths were associated with poor diet and physical inactivity. This fiscal year the Federal Government will invest over $8.3 billion in the school lunch and school breakfast programs, and this bill is a 5-year extension of this investment. The food served in these Federal school food programs meets Federal guidelines and provides balanced nutrition for the children who eat school meals. But in a majority of high schools and middle schools and an alarming number of elementary schools these school food programs and our taxpayer investment in them are undermined by an array of less nutritious food choices. These foods that are sold in competition with the school meals are often high in fat, sugar and sodium. When kids choose these foods, they choose not to eat taxpayer supported, nutritionally balanced meals provided through the School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Not surprisingly, studies show that when kids get their lunches through vending machines at school their diets aren't nearly as healthy as when they obtain their meals through the school meal programs. In fact, among school-aged children only 2 percent meet the dietary recommendations for all food groups. Research shows that a la carte items and vending machines displace student consumption of more nutritious foods. In one study, students from schools that did not offer a la carte foods consumed half a serving more of fruit and a whole serving more of vegetables per day than did children in schools that did have a la carte programs. In another study, when kids gained access to foods other than through the School Lunch Program, they consumed 33 percent less fruit, 42 percent less vegetables, and 35 percent less milk. Not surprisingly, poor diets contribute to childhood obesity and overweight children, with significant negative effects. Compared to regular-weight children, overweight children are more likely to have high levels of cholesterol, high blood pressure, high levels of insulin, and exhibit generally higher numbers of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Between 50 and 80 percent of diabetes cases are associated with diet and sedentary lifestyles. And it is not just about obesity. The lack of fruits, vegetables, and milk in our children's diets has tremendous ramifications for the health of kids and adults. Poor eating habits early in life lay the foundation for chronic disease and premature death at a later age. Cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis are just a few of the many diseases associated with poor diet. Because schools receive substantial revenue from the sale of junk food at school, some folks are concerned that schools will suffer financially if they replace junk food with healthier choices. I understand this concern, but I disagree with the premise. Many schools have stocked their vending machines and snack bars with healthy food, with no negative impact on revenue. Wide-open sales of unhealthy foods in schools hasn't always been the norm. Back in the 1970s, Congress gave the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to set nutrition guidelines to make sure our child nutrition programs work. Congress intended for that authority to extend to all food sales throughout the school and for the entire school day. And this is what the regulations put forth by USDA did. However, the courts subsequently struck that authority down--wrongly, in my opinion. As a result, USDA regulations only apply to foods sold in the school cafeteria and during mealtime rather than to the entire school and school day. This has left us with this crazy situation in which, rather than getting a decent meal in the school cafeteria at lunch, kids can instead just go to the vending machines in the hall for a soft drink and junk food. I believe that Congress should reinstate the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to set nutritional standards for foods available anywhere on school grounds at any time of the day. The Secretary would then determine, after public comment, how to use that authority. This bill takes a different approach, but one that I believe holds great promise for improving the dietary quality of foods sold in our Nation's schools. First, it extends and expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Two years ago in the farm bill, we created a pilot program to provide free fresh and dried fruits and vegetables to children. The pilot covered 25 schools in each of 4 states and 7 schools on an Indian reservation. This program has been remarkably popular with the schools, but more importantly, with the students. In a world in which grocery clerks may not know a radish from a rutabaga, it is encouraging to see elementary, middle school and high school students eating fruits and vegetables that they have never seen before and loving them. This bill continues the fruit and vegetable program in the current states and expands it to 4 additional states and additional schools on Indian reservations. I would like to do more, but this is strong progress toward getting more fruits and vegetables in all schools across the Nation. This bill also requires schools that participate in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs to craft, with broad input from parents and others, plans that include goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other activities to promote student wellness. The plans must also include nutrition guidelines for all foods sold in school. This is not an attack on any particular type of food. Rather, school wellness policies, as required by this bill, pertain to healthy lifestyles more broadly and look at all foods in school, not just those in vending machines and snack bars. It does not mandate what foods can be offered or stipulate their content, but it does ask local schools to set standards that they believe are appropriate. The bill also provides USDA with mandatory funds to help schools to establish their own local wellness policies. I wish that it provided more or this technical assistance, but it is a positive first step. In my mind, these local wellness policies are a potentially revolutionary step towards improving our children's health. They provide real empowerment at the local school level. I look forward to seeing how schools endeavor to craft these policies and the effect that they have on school nutrition environments and children's health. I also hope that, as schools work to craft their own wellness policies, they provide fertile ground for innovation and creative thinking. It is past time that all sectors of our society focus less on treating sickness, and focus more on promoting health and preventing obesity and chronic disease. This bill, in several ways, moves toward that goal and harnesses a potent force, our schools, in the efforts to be healthier as a country. I thank my colleagues for their assistance and input on this important bill as well as for their support.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope to clarify our intent on one provision of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004-- the provision pertaining to the Fruit and Vegetable Program. When the Fruit and Vegetable Program was first enacted as part of the 2002 farm bill, the legislative language did not specify which States were to be participants in the program, but the States were specified in the conference report. The Department of Agriculture followed the conference recommendations. Because we are passing this bill with a somewhat unusual process that will not involve a conference report, I would like to clarify which States are intended to be added to the program. Committee staff discussions have intended that the additional States to participate in the Fruit and Vegetable Program are Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and this was our understanding as we finalized this bill. I am in agreement with these discussions, and it is on this basis that we are completing this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. I would also like to discuss the new substitution provision in the bill. In some school districts in my State and across the country, there are children whose household income is extremely difficult to verify, no matter how vigorous the effort put forth by school officials. The applications I am referring to are for children whose parents regularly do not respond to other school communications or are from a community that is suspicious of questions from governmental entities, including school districts. The families of these children may no longer be residing at the address of record, are not reachable by phone, or may exhibit other such barriers to verification. Am I correct that these are the type of applications envisioned in the bill's subparagraph titled ``Individual Review''?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. importance of breakfast

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the pending amendment by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and then to outline what this second-degree amendment does. I have to say I feel somewhat uneasy about this because I so rarely find myself in disagreement with my friend from Illinois. He and I see eye to eye on many issues. On this, while I believe we have some of the same objectives, we disagree on the appropriate approach. I wanted to set the context for my remarks in somewhat broader terms. For well over a decade, I have spoken out about the need to fundamentally reorient health care in America, reorient it toward prevention and wellness and self-care. When it comes to helping people stay healthy in the first place, we have very little in the way of help or incentives or information. In fact, I have long said we do not have a health care system here in America, we have a sick care system. It is costing us dearly both in terms of health care costs and premature deaths. This is not to say we have not made any progress in the recent past. In the last decade, we have taken some steps toward fixing this major flaw. We have expanded coverage of cancer screenings, we have increased childhood immunization rates, we have expanded prenatal care, and we have more aggressively gone after the promotion of tobacco to children. Another step we took in the last decade toward keeping people healthy in the first place is the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, otherwise known by its acronym DSHEA. Over 158 million Americans take dietary supplements to maintain and improve their health, this Senator included, from vitamin C to calcium to glucosamine to beta carotene to ginko biloba. There is a full range of health supplements that are part of the daily lives of people all over this country. Consumer expenditures on these products reached a reported $17.1 billion in 2000, double the amount spent just 6 years earlier. According to a recent report by the Food and Drug Administration, the use of dietary supplements is likely to grow, due to factors such as the aging of the baby boom generation, increased interest in self- sufficiency, and advances in science that are uncovering new relationships between diet and disease. In response to efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to inappropriately cut off consumers' access to vitamins, minerals, and supplements, in 1994 the House and Senate unanimously approved the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA. Both Senator Hatch and I were pleased to have played a role in crafting this important legislation and getting it through the Congress. This law balanced continued consumer access to vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements. It has also resulted in nearly $100 million in new rigorous scientific research on the benefits and risks of supplements. DSHEA provides a number of important consumer protections. First, it requires that claims made on supplement labels, packaging, and accompanying material be, and I quote here from the law, ``truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated.'' Let me repeat that. The law, DSHEA, requires that anything put on labels, packaging, and accompanying material be ``truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated.'' In addition, the act prohibits manufacturers from making claims that products are intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. DSHEA also provides for good manufacturing practice standards setting requirements for potency, cleanliness, and the stability of products. That is in the law. The FDA was supposed to publish regulations on these good manufacturing practices after the bill was passed in 1994. Finally, after 10 years of pushing and prodding by Senator Hatch, others, and me, the FDA has finally, this year, proposed good manufacturing practices regulations. They expect to have final regulations out by the end of this year. It took them 10 years, but I point out that the law requires it. DSHEA also requires that manufacturers submit adequate information as to the safety of any new ingredients contained in dietary supplements before those products can be sold. Again, I want to repeat that for the Record because when I listened to Senator Durbin last week, you would think someone could put a dietary supplement out there without ever having anything reviewed or looked at or reported to FDA. The law requires that manufacturers submit adequate information as to the safety of any new ingredients contained in dietary supplements before they can be sold. I might point out that the FDA has rejected over half of the proposals to market new dietary ingredients using existing authority. To listen to my good friend from Illinois, you would think everyone could put anything they want out there. That is absolutely not true. DSHEA also provided the Federal Government a number of avenues for the removal of unsafe dietary supplements from the marketplace. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that a product poses an unreasonable risk when taken as directed, the product can be removed from the market. The Secretary utilized this authority earlier in the year to remove products containing ephedra from the market. DSHEA gives the Secretary yet another tool to protect the public from unsafe supplements. If the Secretary determines that a product poses an imminent hazard to the public health, he can remove the product from sale. Finally, in order to promote expanded scientific research on the benefits and health effects of dietary supplements, DSHEA mandated the establishment of the Office of Dietary Supplements within the National Institutes of Health. This has resulted in roughly $100 million in new scientific research that is crucial to expanding reliable information to the American people. Unfortunately, despite some recent improvements, the history of implementation of DSHEA by FDA has been lax. I want to point out here that I serve on the HELP Committee. That is the committee that gives approval to nominees to be FDA Commissioners. Since DSHEA was passed, I have asked every FDA Commissioner for the record, both under the previous administration and under this administration, whether DSHEA gives the FDA enough authority to remove from the shelves harmful products for public consumption. Everyone who has come before us has said, yes, that DSHEA gives them all the authority they need to remove harmful products from the shelf. The problem is the FDA has failed to use all of the tools we provided DSHEA. They have failed to carefully review substantiation of claims. For 10 years they failed to put in place good manufacturing practice standards. It has failed to aggressively remove from the market the illegal street drug knockoffs and other products that are in clear violation of DSHEA requirements. I recently met with the FDA Commissioner and told him about some of the things I have seen in some of the gasoline stations that have these stores attached to them where they have knockoff items which are clearly harmful to people, and yet the FDA is not removing them. Part of the problem has been resources. The FDA needs adequate resources to implement and enforce DSHEA. Congress last responded by regularly providing funds over the last several years beyond those requested in the Presidents' budgets--both the previous President and this President--reaching $9.7 million in fiscal year 2003. This is to provide oversight of dietary supplements. Last year, the Senate adopted an amendment that Senator Hatch, Senator Durbin, and I proposed to increase funding for implementation and enforcement of DSHEA--to increase it by 17.5 percent. It required FDA to spend no less than $11.4 million for this purpose, $1 million more than requested by the administration. This was a substantial and necessary increase. In fact, I would like to see even more devoted to this purpose. In fact, S. 1538, legislation Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this session would increase FDA funding to $20 million next year, rising to $65 million per year within 5 years. We will continue to work to gain adoption of this more aggressive approach. That is sort of the background. What I wanted to point out in my remarks is that we passed DSHEA to give people access to vitamins, minerals, and supplements to keep them healthy in the first place. We provided in the law all that was necessary for the FDA to take harmful products off the shelf. We provided in the law that any claims have to be truthful, not misleading, and substance indicated. We provided that any new ingredients put into these dietary supplements must be approved by FDA. I did not hear Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, mention any of that in his comments last week. I want to point out that there are more than adequate safeguards in DSHEA to keep the public safe and informed about dietary supplements, minerals, and vitamins. Turning to the direct subject of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, I support what I think is the basic essence of the Senator's amendment--getting good and timely information about safety concerns with anything that Americans consume or use--whether that be drugs over the counter, medical devices, foods, or dietary supplements. In any of that area, if there are safety concerns, yes, we need good and timely information. In fact, as I said, Senator Hatch and I have fought to increase the resources that FDA dedicate to implementing an effective adverse events reporting system. Today, we spend about $1.5 million a year for the monitoring of serious adverse events associated with ingesting dietary supplements. Again, I agree with the Senator from Illinois that a mandatory adverse events reporting system for dietary supplements and over-the- counter drugs is something we should consider. However, the issue has to be dealt with in a more comprehensive fashion to be effective and efficient. We need to make sure we have a reporting system that will provide timely, accurate, and useful information. Senator Durbin's amendment in its current form is too limited and does not ensure that we will have a workable system. Therefore, while I support the creation of a mandatory national adverse events reporting system that is broader in scope to protect the American people, I cannot support Senator Durbin's amendment. First, serious adverse health events resulting from consumption of a dietary supplement is a national issue. Any reporting system for such events needs to be national, not just pertaining to Army bases. And it should apply to all supplements, not just those containing caffeine. As a matter of fairness and protection of the public health, it should apply to over-the-counter drugs as well. My colleague from Illinois said on Friday in describing his amendment that over-the-counter drugmakers are required to report serious adverse events associated with their products. I am sorry, that is simply not the case for the vast majority of these over-the-counter drugs. This leads to a number of inconsistencies. I will point out one example that will result from this omission in Senator Durbin's amendment. Under his proposed amendment, one could buy a product whose brand name is No-Doz or similar over-the-counter products with a substantial amount of caffeine, yet be blocked from buying a dietary supplement that contained just a fraction of that stimulant. That simply does not make sense. If we are going to require reporting for dietary supplements, the same should be required of over-the-counter medication. Under Senator Durbin's amendment, on an Army base you could buy No- Doz, which is packed with caffeine, but could not buy a dietary supplement that might have a third, a half or a tenth as much caffeine in it. It makes no sense. Senator Durbin's amendment also excludes drinks that contain stimulants. Again, you could buy Red Bull--this is another brand name product, Red Bull--chock full of caffeine. There is no reporting requirement. But one could not purchase a supplement which had much less caffeine in it. This does not make sense. Second, while I support a broader system, as I have said, the Defense authorization bill is not the place to work out the details of such an important public health matter. As our experience with mandatory adverse events reporting for drugs and medical devices has shown, implementing a mandatory system involves significant practical, technical, and legal issues that must be carefully worked out. Third, there are serious shortcomings in the existing adverse event reporting system that need to be reformed before, or at least in tandem with, a mandatory reporting scheme. One need look no further than a recent report by the GAO. Before we have a mandatory reporting scheme, let's look at the adverse event reporting system. Let's fix it. It is broken. Let's fix that before we have a mandatory scheme that relies upon an adverse reporting system that is totally inadequate. I may have more to say later regarding the GAO study. These are serious shortcomings that clearly need to be addressed regarding a dietary supplement adverse event reporting system to effectively protect public health. While I agree with much of what the Senator from Illinois is aiming to do, his approach is not something we should be approving. Therefore, Senator Hatch and I are offering a more comprehensive approach to Mr. Durbin's amendment. Our amendment says three things. First, the FDA should make it a priority to fully and effectively implement the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, including taking appropriate enforcement action against unsafe dietary supplements. They have the authority to do that. It is in the law. Every FDA Commissioner has said they have that authority. Secondly, our amendment says within 180 days of enactment of this provision, the Department of Health and Human Services should develop a plan for mandatory reporting of serious adverse events occurring as a result of the ingestion of any dietary supplement or over-the-counter drug and provide that plan for review and consideration by Congress. That is the logical way to proceed. Third, our amendment says adequate resources should be made available for the effective oversight of dietary supplements and for sound scientific research on dietary supplements. This is a more important response. It deals with the real and broader issues at hand. I look forward to working with my colleagues, including the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to assure that consumers continue to benefit from healthful dietary supplements and we have a strong quality assurance system that includes good manufacturing practice standards and an improved serious adverse event reporting system. I hope our colleagues will join in supporting our amendment which will permit people to have access to vitamins, minerals, and supplements which will tighten up the adverse event reporting system and which will also get adequate resources to the FDA to provide the adequate oversight of dietary supplements. I see my good friend from Utah, one of the great leaders on this issue. Regarding enactment of DSHEA, I am proud to be a cosponsor with him, working to make sure all of our people get vitamins, minerals, and supplements to keep them healthy.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment. I send it to the desk on behalf of myself and Mr. Hatch. It is a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 3225.

Mr. HARKIN. No. If the chairman would yield, it is this Senator's intention to call for the regular order, which would bring up the Durbin amendment, and I have a second degree to the Durbin amendment. Then I will speak on that. I assume right after I finish, Senator Hatch will speak on it.

Mr. HARKIN. No. 3225.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Eileen Mozinski of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Jenelle Krishnamoorthy be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would be delighted to, my mentor and my good friend from West Virginia.

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.