Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. I wish we could go for another hour. Just a couple points. First, on job growth, that I have heard my friends on the other side talk about here this evening and the last month. The fact is, manufacturing jobs are going down. The service sector has increased. Manufacturing jobs continue to lose. One in seven manufacturing jobs were lost during the Bush administration. We are now at the lowest level of manufacturing jobs in our country since 1958, and it continues to go down. So when they talk about job growth, they are talking about the lowest kinds of jobs and the lowest paid kinds of jobs in the service sector. Again, what we ought to be talking about are jobs. Again, as my colleague from North Dakota said, just look at the facts, the three major budget bills and job creation bills. In 1981, 1.4 million jobs were lost in 2 years after the Republican budget bill past. Under the Democratic budget bill passed in 1993, under our economic plan, 6.4 million jobs were created in 2 years. Of course, we know what is happening under this President Bush: after his budget bill passed in 2001, 2.1 million jobs were lost in the next two years. It is the same old thing--Republican trickle-down economics was tried in 1981 and 2001. Put it in at the top, hope that it trickles down. That is the fundamental difference between Democratic and Republican economic policies. We have long believed--and the proof is what we did in the 1990s-- that if you put it in at the bottom, give it more to working families, invest in education and health care, educational opportunities, make the economy more efficient, it percolates up. It is percolate-up economics that works versus trickle down. The problem with trickle down is when you give it to those at the top, they take too big a cut and it never quite trickles down. But when you put it at the bottom, you put people to work and you get the economy humming. We need to do it by expanding educational opportunities. Under this President, we have had the lowest request for educational funding in the last 30 years. That policy is going to mean a less well trained work force in the long-term, an economy that will not compete as well and larger deficits for our country.

Mr. HARKIN. I see. First of all, as my friend from Virginia knows, I represent a rural State, as does my colleague from North Dakota. We have a particular use for SUVs as pickup trucks and heavy vehicles in the country. I happen to have a house out in the Senator's State, in Fairfax County. I drive back and forth to work 12 miles every day. There is traffic congestion. I can't believe how many SUVs, pickup trucks, and big trucks I see. I do not believe that we need to give high income doctors a special $100,000 tax deduction if they buy an oversized SUV weighing more than what is the tax definition of a car so they can drive around the suburbs. For legitimate business reasons, a farmer or a rancher might need them out in the countryside for that kind of work, you bet. They need that, but not the people who live in this city. We are hemorrhaging debt and don't need to create that tax break. CAFE standards: I have to say to my friend from Virginia, you can't have long-term sustained economic growth in this country if you are destroying the environment or if we continue to sharply increase our oil supply. That makes us far more dependent on Mideast oil. There has to be a balance. We do have to have balance. But what I see from the other side is just to heck with any regulations, throw caution to the wind, pollute as much as you want and not to worry about the huge oil bills we are paying to the Mideast. Our taxpayers today--the Senator's taxpayers and mine--are coughing up billions of dollars every year to clean up the toxic waste sites that big corporations left and walked away from, and now our taxpayers have to pay to clean it up. That is why it is important to have regulations to make sure that companies don't pollute and that they do things in the best environmentally sound manner.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I join Senator Dorgan and my colleagues on the other side in saying how pleased we are to be here this evening to continue this process of having legitimate debates on the Senate floor regarding topics of importance to the American people. Tonight we will be talking about jobs and the economy. In my 5-minute opening statement, I am prepared to show that Democratic economic policies are superior to Republican economic policies as it benefits the American public. How are Democratic policies better? Simply because we create more and better jobs. We create a better standard of living and quality of life for the majority of Americans who are working. We do this through worker and consumer protections, equal opportunity for women and minorities with basic measures such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, all historic steps led by Democrats, with Republicans either trailing or opposing outright. Now, another example: The last Democratic administration and our economic plan, embodied in the 1993 budget, set us on a course of adding 6.4 million jobs in just 2 years. We eroded the annual deficits and eventually created the actual largest projected Federal budget surpluses in history. Every Republican in the Congress voted against that budget in 1993, with dire warnings about its effect. We invested in people and family. We balanced the budget and we set the conditions for the most successful economic recovery and expansion ever in the history of the United States. Our friends on the other side cannot match our record on jobs, and I point to this chart I have. If we look at the average monthly change in jobs, Democratic versus Republican Presidents, jobs gained or lost per month, going clear back to Lyndon Johnson, we can see that under Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, we had tremendous job growth. Under Nixon, Reagan, Ford, and Bush 1, we had job growth but not as much as under Democrats. If we look to the far right, we will see some devastating things that have happened since this President took office, not a job growth but an actual job loss, my point being that under Democrats we build better jobs and more jobs. In 3 years, this administration has lost 3 million private sector jobs and their budget and tax policies have contributed to the largest and actual budget deficits in the history of the country. The last quarter showed some improvement in our economy, and that is good, but it is not nearly enough. This administration will be the first since Herbert Hoover's to preside over a net loss of jobs over a 4-year period. We need to be creating about 150,000 jobs a month just to stay even. We are not doing that today. We are not even treading water in terms of job creation. If my colleagues think the economy is tough now, look at the economic future the Republicans are creating. This administration turned a projected 10-year, $5.7 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit over the coming 10 years. That debt imperils Social Security and Medicare, which might not bother some of my friends on that side who would like to privatize Social Security or Medicare or end it as we know it. That debt hurts our economy, it crowds our private sector investments we need for economic growth. It makes it difficult for us to make the investments in education, health, schools, roads, and our infrastructure. For the long term, the Federal Government will have to borrow $400 billion a year, squeezing out private sector investment we need for a growing economy. The law of supply and demand which cannot be repealed means that borrowing will make investment dollars scarce and interest rates higher. Higher interest rates in the future will limit growth and limit jobs. Now, instead of massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest, the answer should have been our approach: Fiscal responsibility, tax cuts targeted to low- and middle-income working families, and good job- creating, direct investments such as building roads and schools, our economic infrastructure. That should be the path we should be on.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Theresa Frueh of my office be given privileges of the floor tonight and tomorrow.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased to have joined Mr. Craig in offering this amendment to add the Pesticide Maintenance Fees Reauthorization Act of 2003 to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect these maintenance fees for the reregistration of pesticides expired 2 years ago. Since that time, authority has been extended through riders on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This amendment would provide a long- term authorization that has been agreed to by the Senate and House Agriculture Committees and a broad array of stakeholders, including environmental and agricultural groups. This proposal ensures that EPA continues to collect fees from the industry of an estimated $20 million per year. This will cover the costs of reevaluating chemicals first registered prior to 1984, including the cost of 200 EPA employees engaged in this important work. The EPA has no alternative but to collect these fees or sharply reduce their commitment to oversight of these chemicals. A slowdown in consideration of these applications is neither in the interest of the environment, nor of the farmers or chemical manufacturers. This is a bill that has broad support, and it is important to get this done this year, so that it is in place for next year's budget. Adoption of this amendment will ensure that EPA has resources to evaluate and approve safer, more effective chemicals, and that older pesticides are reviewed for safety in accordance with the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2167

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Or someone mentioned January 5, 1995, I offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate that would have set up a procedure to close cloture. We would have had a vote, then a couple weeks would have to go by, have another vote, a couple weeks go by, and have another vote. Finally, you get down to 51 votes. I still believe in that, that after a month's period of time, after extended debate, there ought to be 51 votes and move legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was driving in this morning and listening to NPR. I couldn't turn on the television this morning because our house didn't have electricity. The wind knocked out the electricity. So I was listening to the radio driving in. They had a little snippets of the debate last night: Some people talking about this as being theater, whether it was real theater or false theater. I don't know that I want to even venture a guess as to whether this is real or false, but I will tell you this: It is hypocritical theater. This is hypocritical theater going on right now. The arguments of my friends on the other side, the Republican side, are so filled with hypocrisy, so filled with double standards. These arguments reek with pure, unadulterated partisan politics. I have listened to this, and it is hard to know where to begin. This morning I was listening to some of my friends on the other side talk about a moral obligation to have a vote on the Senate floor on judges. However, I was listening to the words carefully. Evidently, it is not morally correct or morally right for Democrats to hold up judicial nominees on the Senate floor with extended debate or filibuster, whatever you call it. That is morally unacceptable. But it is morally acceptable for Republicans to hold up judicial nominees in committee. Here is where the words get kind of funny. I have heard the Republicans talk about this, and they say: That is not a filibuster in committee; that is a hold. Here on the floor it is a filibuster. One is morally acceptable; one is not. Please tell me where the moral demarcation line is on this. How absurd. How reeking of hypocrisy. I remember 15 times more judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans. But they did it in committee. When this all started last night, I thought, this is so appropriate that this theater, this hypocritical theater we are engaged in, is happening at nighttime. It is so appropriate for this event to take place at night because under cover of darkness is where this majority likes to operate, in committee, not open on the floor. No, block the nominees in committee. That is not a filibuster. That is a block. That is a hold. That is OK. Morally, that is acceptable. It doesn't count. But don't dare block them out in the open, on the Senate floor. Three years ago, Bonnie Campbell, former attorney general of the State of Iowa, head of the Violence against Women Office at the U.S. attorneys office here in Washington, did a great job, came before the committee. President Clinton had nominated her for judicial appointment to the Eighth Circuit. Both blue slips were turned in by the two Senators from Iowa. She had a hearing, a great hearing. Not one issue was raised in public against Bonnie Campbell, no one said she was unfit to be a judge, that there was something bad in her background, that she had made bad judgments or decisions as attorney general. Not one thing came out against Bonnie Campbell, but she never got on the floor for a vote. She was held hostage in Committee never to be seen again. Now I say to my friends on the other side: I stood here, asked numerous times unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out on the floor to have a debate. Every time, it was objected to. Where were my friends who are so sanctimonious now? Where were they 3 years ago when I asked unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out of committee? Now I see clearly. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I see clearly. It is morally OK to stop them in committee. Don't give a vote in committee, under cover of darkness. You pull the cloak over it and you don't allow them out of committee. That's OK because no one really knows what's going on outside the Beltway. It is hypocrisy--sheer hypocrisy. The Senator from Arizona earlier said he had an analogy, something about, we are going to hang them without a trial. I kind of missed a little bit of that. How about this analogy--about Bonnie Campbell's analogy? How about all of these judges who were held in committee and blocked? They were held in prison forever with no charges, no trial, no vote, just lock them up and don't ever let them out. Sanctimonious arguments on the other side. My, my, my. Notice the nuance of the words. How many times have I now heard Republicans on the other side say: I will never, never vote to block a nominee on the floor? I hear it all the time. That seems to be a common refrain from the other side: I will never vote to block a nominee using a filibuster. My good friend from Utah said that. But check the record. The Senator from Utah, who was recently in the Chamber saying he would never vote against cloture, voted against cloture 8 times in the Clinton administration, against 8 nominees, Janet Napolitano to be U.S. attorney, Ambassador Flynn, Walter Dellinger, Rick Taggert, Sam Brown, Edmund DeJarnette, Henry Foster, Derrick Shearer. My friend from Utah voted against cloture eight times. Again, where is the moral demarcation line? I guess it is morally all right for my Republican friends to vote against cloture on nominees for attorney general, ambassadors, et cetera. It is morally OK to do that. But it is not morally OK to vote against cloture on a lifetime appointment to the judiciary. Please, someone tell me about the moral demarcation line. You can vote against cloture for nominees eight times and come out on the floor and say, I will never vote against cloture on a judicial nominee. Again, notice the nuance of the words. This is a filibuster. But if they're held up in Committee with a hold for no apparent reason, well that doesn't count. There's nothing morally wrong about that. I heard that from my Republican friends: We didn't filibuster all of these judges in committee; they just had a hold put on them. Apparently, there's an obvious moral difference that I just have failed to see. It is at times such as this I am reminded of one of my favorite refrains from one of my favorite plays, ``Finian's Rainbow.'' It goes like this: For life is like cricket. We play by the rules. But the secret which few people know, that keeps men of class far apart from the fools, is to make up the rules as you go. It is a little refrain from a song in ``Finian's Rainbow.'' Republicans just want to make up the rules as they go, change them to fit the times and circumstances, change their arguments--these actions represent sanctimonious hypocrisy, partisan politics, double standards. Well, we have had 30 hours here, I guess. I want to just say, I thank all of the staff and the pages, the reporters, the police, all who had to stay and work overtime. Speaking of overtime, while we are wasting time with this theater of hypocrisy, guess what is happening in other parts of this building. Guess what is happening under the cover of darkness. The Republicans want to take away your overtime pay protection. That is what is happening. The administration, earlier this year, came out with a new proposed rule that will effectively take away overtime pay protection for 8 million Americans. Not one hearing was held on it. Cover of darkness. Not one public hearing was held on that. The Senate voted on an appropriations bill to stop the administration from enacting that rule. The House of Representatives joined in and voted. Yet the administration, the President, says he is going to veto it. He is going to veto funding for education, health care, medical research at NIH, funding for job training programs, all because they want to take away your overtime pay protection. All these people who worked here overnight--police, reporters, staff, so many people who worked overtime--while they are playing this little shell game. It reminds me of that carnival shell game. You watch this hand, but with the other hand they are picking your pockets. Let's waste 30 hours of time talking about 4 judges to hide the fact that we don't want to vote on the issues that really matter to the American people--like raising the minimum wage, protecting overtime, extending unemployment insurance assistance, passing a real medicare prescription drug benefit and responsible energy bill and passing our appropriations bills. It is a shell game. Look at these 4 judges that the Democrats are blocking. Don't look a the 168 judges this Senate has confirmed under President Bush. Hype this up. We will have this theater to hide what's really going on. The other side may think the American people don't know what is going on. But I believe the American people haven't been fooled. They know this is a waste of time to hide what the Majority can't or don't want to get done.

Mr. HARKIN. Is that under a unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, if they would modify it to look like what we did in 1995. My amendment in 1995 covered everything. It covered legislation. It covered judges. It covered everything. If you put that forward, you have got my vote. But, no, what you want to do on that side is only have it pertain to judges, and not to legislation. No. I am sorry. If you want to end the filibuster, do it for everything, not just for what you think is right. Let's do it for everything. So I say to my friend--and he is my friend; he is a great Senator--I know we have a disagreement about this, but I am just saying, what I hear from the other side is they want to pick and choose. They want to be able to say, if you stop a judge in committee, that is fine, but you cannot stop him on the floor. And that is what they did. They stopped the judges in committee. So when you hear Republicans come out here today or last night or however long this charade is going to go on--when they beat their breasts and say, oh, my goodness, I have never or I will never vote to filibuster a judge on the floor, check the record on that person and see what they did when they were held up in committee. Oh, it was all right. That was a hold. That was not a filibuster. That was a hold. Fancy words, different words--same result. So what the rules have been in the past, the game, the rules we have played by in the Senate are good enough for today, and if you want to change the rules, change them for everything. Do not just pick and choose one little thing at a time. That is my point to my friend from Colorado. I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to speak, and I am going to yield to him. But I just again point out that while this charade is going on here, the administration is at work trying to cut Social Security benefits. They are at work trying to come up with a Medicare prescription drug bill that benefits our drug companies and not our seniors. They are at work trying to take away overtime pay protection for 8 million working Americans. They are at work stopping an increase in the minimum wage. They are at work stopping any increase in an unemployment insurance extension. That is the game that is being played here. I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague and friend from North Dakota.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HARKIN. An opportunity?

Mr. HARKIN. I will in a second. Guess what happened. I offered that amendment. Guess how many Republicans supported it. Zero. Zero. Not one Republican supported it. Now what I hear they want to do is they want to change the rules to prevent cloture on judges, lifetime appointments. But on legislation-- on legislation--no. They want to continue to be able to filibuster legislation. Well, come on. Give me a break. If you want to stop filibusters, stop it for everything, not just for judges. Now, my friend from Colorado, I know wants to ask me a question, and I do not know how much time I have, but I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative session and proceed to consider the bill to increase the minimum wage, Calender No. 3, S. 224; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HARKIN. No, I do not modify my request.

Mr. HARKIN. There again, I think we see what this is all about. We want to respond to the real needs of our people in America. We want to increase the minimum wage and the Republicans keep objecting to it. They will not let us bring it up for a vote. But they want to bring up four judges for lifetime appointments for a vote. So we see the difference. We are trying to work on behalf of the American people to meet the real needs of people unemployed and people who need an increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans will not bring it up. That is the difference here. Obviously, what we have, I called it the theater of the absurd earlier. There has been a play running for several years at the Kennedy Center called ``Shear Madness.'' It has now come to the Senate floor and is playing here now, ``Shear Madness.'' You can watch it free here. You do not have to pay to go to the Kennedy Center to see it. First of all, I thank the police, the court reporters, other Capitol employees, who have had to spend long hours here through the night so that we can waste time, waste taxpayers' money, engaging in this ridiculous charade. I am told that the police out here are putting in 16-hour shifts, 16-hour shifts just so we can come out here for this ridiculous charade. I am told our court reporters have to do 20-minute increments rather than the 10-minute increments they normally do. I am not a court reporter, but I think having that thing strapped around your shoulders and working for 20 minutes gets pretty tiring. Does anyone on the other side think about these people? They have families. They have other things they need to do. How about our police working 16-hour shifts out there? Anyone on the other side of the aisle ever think about what is happening to them because of this charade we are putting on? We think about them. I might say to the police and other people putting in all the overtime, while we are here with all this charade, do you know what is going on in the other part of the Capitol, downtown with the administration? They are trying to take away your overtime pay protection. Watch the little shell game with this hand on the judges, and with the other hand they are trying to take away your overtime pay protection. That is what this is all about. Tune in and watch this charade. But do you know what else is going on in the other part of the Capitol? They are trying to take away your Social Security. They are trying to do away with your Medicare provisions. That is what is going on in another part of the Capitol. Don't take my word for it. Here is something out of Congress Daily this morning: Enlisting the support of health care industry, House Republicans accelerated efforts Wednesday to build outside support for the emerging Medicare prescription drug bill, and quotes a Republican from Virginia who said this new business coalition is absolutely critical in whipping Members just before a vote. They have been critical all along. It works from the groundwork. It is all about winning elections at home. Everyone understands this is a political process. This is on the Medicare prescription drug bill. He said the coalition that they are putting together is broader than the drug companies, and it includes representatives ranging from construction companies to Caterpillar. This is the coalition the Republicans are putting together to destroy Medicare as we know it. They are putting together a coalition of business, drug companies, construction companies, et cetera. Where are the seniors? Where are the elderly in their coalition? Not to be heard from. And they are going to do away with Medicare as we know it. They are going to privatize it. Here is another one from November 6, Newhouse News Services, talking about Social Security. It quotes a Josh Bolton, Director of Bush's Office of Management and Budget: In the long run, Social Security cannot meet its commitments. Bolton would switch the system from government-guaranteed benefits to private investment accounts that would probably, but not positively, generate as good a benefit as Social Security now promises but can't deliver. Now, the administration is saying that Social Security cannot survive. It is a fact that the tax cuts passed by this Congress and signed by this President, most of which went to the wealthy in our society, if those amounts of money that go out to those tax cuts had instead been used for the Social Security system, Social Security would be solvent for the next 75 years. But now they are saying we do not have enough money for Social Security; we cannot meet our obligations. Of course not. They opened the gates through the Treasury and let all the money go to the wealthy in our country with that tax program they had. That is what this is about. Get your mind off of that and look at this charade we are putting on today. I will respond to my friend from Colorado, and he is my friend. He is a great Senator who just quoted me a little while ago, remarks I made on the Senate floor a couple years ago about bringing up Bonnie Campbell. Here is a list of 63 judges who were blocked at that time, Clinton nominees, one of those being Bonnie Campbell from Iowa. I point out 63 here and only 4 we have blocked. Here is the difference. The Republicans say they were stopped in committee. Yes, the Senator from Colorado quoted me accurately. I did ask unanimous consent to bring Bonnie Campbell out of committee to the floor. They objected. The Republicans objected. Now, Bonnie Campbell had a hearing. Nothing was raised about her. Nothing that was bad or anything in her background--nothing. She was absolutely qualified to serve as a circuit court judge, but Republicans would not even let her out of committee. Here is what the Republicans say. It is wrong to stop someone in the Senate with a filibuster or an extended debate. That is wrong. But it is all right if we stop them in committee, which is exactly what they did. So, yes, I asked unanimous consent to bring it out of committee, bring it to the floor. You bet I did. They objected. Now, they are trying to say, why don't we do now what they were unwilling to do? Why should we change the rules, I ask my friend from Colorado? We will play by the same rules you played by. But, no, now you on the other side want to change the rules. As I said this morning, my favorite line, a refrain from Finian's Rainbow that I bring up at times like this. It goes like this: Life is like cricket. We play by the rules. But the secret which few people know that keep men of class far apart from the fools is to make up the rules as you go. That is what they are trying to do. Of course, I tried to bring it up. They objected. But now they want to change the rules and have a different playing field.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Senator Cochran, to introduce the National Veterinary Medical Service Act. This bill will offer veterinarians a valuable opportunity to serve where they are needed most, while receiving help in paying off their often burdensome student loans. The cost of becoming a veterinarian is tremendous. Unless aspiring veterinarians come from a wealthy background, they will have accumulated substantial debt by the time they leave school. Because of this debt, their postgraduate opportunities for employment are greatly limited to the geographical areas and types of jobs where incomes meet the burden of student loan repayment. By defraying some of this debt, this bill will help veterinarians to take jobs where there are shortages of veterinarians--such as meat and poultry inspectors in the Federal Government, or in rural areas where large animal practitioners are needed. Many of these unfilled positions are essential to ensuring the health and food security of Americans. We need to keep the Federal Government staffed with skilled veterinarians in order to maintain a safe food supply and the health of our livestock and poultry. We have all seen the devastating effects diseases such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Foot and Mouth Disease can have on the livestock and poultry industries and the human and economic toll they can take. I have worked on many initiatives to address the uneven distribution of medical professionals. Although it often can require extra incentives to get these professionals where they are needed, they often transform these shortage areas by providing critically important services. I have been very happy with the ability of past bills to enable medical professionals to go where they are needed, and I am confident the National Veterinary Medical Service Act will be as successful for veterinarians. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Senator Cochran, to introduce the National Veterinary Medical Service Act. This bill will offer veterinarians a valuable opportunity to serve where they are needed most, while receiving help in paying off their often burdensome student loans. The cost of becoming a veterinarian is tremendous. Unless aspiring veterinarians come from a wealthy background, they will have accumulated substantial debt by the time they leave school. Because of this debt, their postgraduate opportunities for employment are greatly limited to the geographical areas and types of jobs where incomes meet the burden of student loan repayment. By defraying some of this debt, this bill will help veterinarians to take jobs where there are shortages of veterinarians--such as meat and poultry inspectors in the Federal Government, or in rural areas where large animal practitioners are needed. Many of these unfilled positions are essential to ensuring the health and food security of Americans. We need to keep the Federal Government staffed with skilled veterinarians in order to maintain a safe food supply and the health of our livestock and poultry. We have all seen the devastating effects diseases such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Foot and Mouth Disease can have on the livestock and poultry industries and the human and economic toll they can take. I have worked on many initiatives to address the uneven distribution of medical professionals. Although it often can require extra incentives to get these professionals where they are needed, they often transform these shortage areas by providing critically important services. I have been very happy with the ability of past bills to enable medical professionals to go where they are needed, and I am confident the National Veterinary Medical Service Act will be as successful for veterinarians. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Eaton and Melissa Hall of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of the week.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad, Roberts and others in introducing the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2003. This bill offers an excellent opportunity to help conserve wildlife habitat, increase the amount of land available for outdoor recreational activities, and help farmers and ranchers. Hunting and other outdoor activities are very popular and are an important part of our country's heritage. Unfortunately, the shortage of public land in some States limits the ability of people to enjoy these activities. Providing incentives to increase public access to private lands can enhance outdoor recreational opportunities and help rural economies. In many rural areas businesses associated with wildlife recreation, such as sporting goods stores, campgrounds, and motels and hotels, are an important part of the economy. By increasing the lands available for outdoor recreation, not only will more local residents be able to enjoy this activity, but we will also encourage more people to visit rural areas, bringing additional revenue to these rural communities. When hunting, bird watching or hiking on accessible lands, visitors stay in local lodging, purchase goods in stores and eat in restaurants. The money generated from these activities is good for rural economies. In many States, such as Iowa, many farmers and landowners have traditionally granted hunters and other outdoor recreationists permission to use their land when asked. This bill will help compensate owners and operators of farm and ranch land for their generosity and also encourage more of them to provide such access to their land. And, of course, this bill will benefit wildlife by encouraging landowners and operators to maintain, increase and improve habitat for wildlife. In States access programs now operating, information listing enrolled private land is often readily available to allow recreationists to access the land without the need to bother the owners to ask for permission. Many existing programs also have the very important benefit of reducing the liability of landowners and operators in case of injury to people using their land. State programs also help ensure enforcement of hunting and other regulations and help landowners and operators posts signs and information. Currently at least 13 States have public access programs that would be eligible for funds from this bill. While Iowa currently does not have a program, there is great interest in starting a program, and I believe this bill will enable Iowa to start one. This bill provides flexibility to allow States to design programs to meet the particular needs and interests of landowners and recreationists in each State while at the same time ensuring that the goals of increasing wildlife habitat and available lands for public recreation are met. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad, Roberts and others in introducing the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2003. This bill offers an excellent opportunity to help conserve wildlife habitat, increase the amount of land available for outdoor recreational activities, and help farmers and ranchers. Hunting and other outdoor activities are very popular and are an important part of our country's heritage. Unfortunately, the shortage of public land in some States limits the ability of people to enjoy these activities. Providing incentives to increase public access to private lands can enhance outdoor recreational opportunities and help rural economies. In many rural areas businesses associated with wildlife recreation, such as sporting goods stores, campgrounds, and motels and hotels, are an important part of the economy. By increasing the lands available for outdoor recreation, not only will more local residents be able to enjoy this activity, but we will also encourage more people to visit rural areas, bringing additional revenue to these rural communities. When hunting, bird watching or hiking on accessible lands, visitors stay in local lodging, purchase goods in stores and eat in restaurants. The money generated from these activities is good for rural economies. In many States, such as Iowa, many farmers and landowners have traditionally granted hunters and other outdoor recreationists permission to use their land when asked. This bill will help compensate owners and operators of farm and ranch land for their generosity and also encourage more of them to provide such access to their land. And, of course, this bill will benefit wildlife by encouraging landowners and operators to maintain, increase and improve habitat for wildlife. In States access programs now operating, information listing enrolled private land is often readily available to allow recreationists to access the land without the need to bother the owners to ask for permission. Many existing programs also have the very important benefit of reducing the liability of landowners and operators in case of injury to people using their land. State programs also help ensure enforcement of hunting and other regulations and help landowners and operators posts signs and information. Currently at least 13 States have public access programs that would be eligible for funds from this bill. While Iowa currently does not have a program, there is great interest in starting a program, and I believe this bill will enable Iowa to start one. This bill provides flexibility to allow States to design programs to meet the particular needs and interests of landowners and recreationists in each State while at the same time ensuring that the goals of increasing wildlife habitat and available lands for public recreation are met. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you for that clarification. asian long-horned beetle

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I comment on the Hatch-Harkin-Durbin amendment No. 2090 adopted by the Senate yesterday. This action taken by the Senate is an important step in our continuing efforts to assure that Americans have access to high quality dietary supplements to maintain and improve their health. Over 158 million Americans take dietary supplements to maintain and improve their health. From vitamin C to calcium to glucosamine to beta carotene, there is a full range of healthful 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. And, 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 some supplements, in 1994, the House and Senate unanimously approved the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA. I was pleased to have played a role in crafting this important legislation. This law balanced continued consumer access to vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements, increased scientific research on the benefits and risks of supplements and needed consumer protections. DSHEA provides a number of important consumer protections. It requires that claims made on supplement labels, packaging and accompanying material be ``truthful, non-misleading and substantiated.'' In addition, the act prohibits manufacturers from making claims that products are intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent a disease. DSHEA also provides for good manufacturing practice standards setting requirements for potency, cleanliness and stability of products. It requires that manufacturers submit adequate information as to the safety of any new ingredients contained in dietary supplements before those products can be sold. DSHEA also provided the Federal Government a number of avenues for the removal of unsafe dietary supplements from the marketplace. If the FDA determines that a product poses an unreasonable risk when taken as directed, the product can be removed from the market. 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 research is crucial to expanding reliable information to the American people. Unfortunately, despite some recent improvement, the history of implementation of DSHEA by the FDA has been poor. The Food and Drug Administration has failed to use the many tools provided by DSHEA. It has failed to carefully review claims for truthfulness. It has failed to put in place new good manufacturing practice standards. It has failed to aggressively remove from the market illegal street drug knock-offs and other products which are in clear violation of DSHEA requirements. Part of the problem has been resources. The FDA needs adequate resources to appropriately implement and enforce DSHEA. Congress has responded by regularly providing funds over the last several years beyond those requested in the President's budget, reaching $9.7 million in fiscal year 2003. The amendment we approved yesterday would increase funding for implementation and enforcement of DSHEA by at least 17.5 percent. It requires FDA to spend no less than $11.4 million for this purpose, $1 million more than requested by the administration. This is a substantial and necessary increase. I would like to see even more devoted to this purpose. In fact, S. 1538, legislation Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year 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. I thank the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee for their willingness to work with us and gain approval of this important consumer protection amendment. I also want to express my support for an amendment Senator Durbin offered to expedite the FDA's action on dietary supplements containing ephedra. The FDA should make a decision promptly on this matter and it should be based on sound science.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks made by the Senator from Arkansas and also express my support for increased funding for civil rights and for minority farmers at the Department of Agriculture. In the most recent farm bill, the Committee on Agriculture once again took up the issue of civil rights at USDA. Dismayed by continued complaints from both clients and employees about the inhospitable atmosphere towards minorities at USDA, the farm bill created, for the first time, the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. That position has been filled for several months now, and I am hopeful that the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights will be able to create positive movement in this regard. It is past time for USDA to shed the shameful nickname, ``The Last Plantation,'' that many have given it due to its civil rights atmosphere. The House recognized the necessity of doing more for socially disadvantaged farmers and USDA employees earlier this year when it passed by voice vote an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that increased funding for several important civil rights functions. First, it increased funding for the Office of Civil Rights by several million dollars. These additional funds will enable the Department to clear out its backlog of hundreds of civil rights complaints, many of which stagnate for months and months. We need to wipe the slate clean. As long as USDA is unable to deal with this backlog it will be difficult for it to concentrate on its primary task; preventing such complaints from arising in the first place and making the Department of Agriculture hospitable to all farmers regardless of race, sex, or creed. The House-passed amendment also increased funding for the section 2501 Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. Despite being the primary program by which to make USDA programs available to minority farmers, the section 2501 program has been flat-funded for several years. The Senate bill before us today provides a little over $3 million for the section 2501 program. This modest increase over last year's funding is a commendable start, but it is not nearly enough. The House bill, on the other hand, increased funding by $5 million to a total of over $8 million. The level provided in the House bill is clearly more consistent with the need to reach out to minority and socially-disadvantaged farmers. I hope that the chairman and ranking member of the committee will agree to the House funding levels for this program in the conference committee.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I concur in this approach and also assure my colleagues of my support for continued funding for education in the FSM and RMI under this new authorization.