Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate is now in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to spend some time today here on the floor of the Senate discussing the state of the American economy, the choices we face, how we got here and hopefully a vision for a better future for our middle-class working families. What is the state of the Nation's economy? You don't need to look at the economic indicators, and the latest unemployment statistics, although they could tell you a story. You can just walk on the streets of Burlington or Waterloo or any city, or most towns large and small anywhere in America. For ordinary people paying taxes, it is tough for families right now. People are hurting. In the longer view, we face a growing fiscal and economic crisis due to a lack of reasonable economic leadership of this President. We have returned to deficit spending and are mortgaging the dreams of the middle class with millions to finance a tax cut aimed at the very few. That tax cut is squeezing out sensible, middle-class tax relief. It is squeezing out funding for health care and education. In the last year, the President, even in his budget reduced funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, which just yesterday at the White House he was touting as being a great success. It is squeezing out money needed for that. Worst of all, the President's fiscal mismanagement threatens Social Security and Medicare, and threatens having a real prescription drug benefit that is so needed. It threatens the need that we have to raise the floor on Medicare payments to States. My State of Iowa is right now rock bottom in the Nation in terms of beneficiary funding for Medicare. Again, we are facing the retirement of the baby boomers who are coming along pretty soon; and, of course, the need to fight terrorism. All of these are being squeezed by the misguided and misplaced economic policies of this administration. To date, the economic leadership of President Bush has been a miserable failure. Let us start at the beginning. On the day that George W. Bush was sworn as the 23rd President of the United States, the 10-year budget surplus was estimated at $5.6 trillion $3.1 trillion on budget--the largest in American history. That year's budget surplus was $236 billion--again, the largest 1-year budget surplus in our Nation's history. The economy had created 22 million new jobs in the previous 8 years. Unemployment stood at 4.2 percent, a record. The Nation's fiscal health in January of 2001 was such that facing a slowing economy, we could have passed a substantial stimulus package to boost the short-term economy without harming the Nation's long-term fiscal health. In kind of simple terms, it is if you or I get sick, and if we eat right and exercise, and we are in good health, we can even ride out the occasion of a bad flu, for example. But if you haven't taken care of yourself, if you haven't eaten right, and you are not in good health overall, a simple flu can put you in the hospital or on life support. That is the kind of smart economic plan we followed in the 1990s. Those fiscally responsible and pro-growth policies made it possible for us to deal with the short-term economic slowdown without harming our Nation's long-term fiscal health. Unfortunately, President Bush chose a different but now an all-to- familiar economic course--a massive, fiscally irresponsible tax cut that does little to create jobs but does benefit largely the wealthiest among us. It has little or nothing to do with helping the middle class or with creating jobs. In this day and age it seems that a Republican candidate running for President can never go wrong by proposing a massive, deficit-bloating tax plan that largely benefits the wealthy. That is what candidate George Bush did in 1999. It was not about the state of the American economy, it was about simple Republican politics. The Bush tax plan forgot that Americans don't live their lives on the right or the left of political parties. They live and work and struggle as part of the great American middle class. And they are here every day--not just on election day. They deserve economic policies that respond to their needs--not the short-term political goals of this President, or any other politician or party or political theory. Not only is the Bush tax plan rooted in what I call 2000 Republican politics, but it is deeply rooted in a failed economic theory called ``supply-side economics.'' Supply-side economics is nothing more than a dressed up fancy name for what we called back in the 1920s and the 1930s trickle-down economics. In fact, former President Bush called it, I think, what it really is. He once termed it voodoo economics. You can call it anything you want, but, in the end, it spells disaster for America's long-term fiscal health. At its core, trickle- down economics says that if we just slash marginal tax rates, particularly for the wealthiest Americans, they will get so much money that it will trickle down, and the economy will grow so rapidly that this tax cut will, to a significant extent, pay for itself. Well, it is a nice theory for those who are not weighted down by the burden of reality. It does not work in widely held economic theory and it did not work in practice when former President Reagan tried it in 1981. That is a fact. Many will claim that the 1981 tax cut was good for the economy. In fact, the economy dropped like a rock. When it passed in August 1981, unemployment was 7.4 percent. By the end of the year, it had climbed to 8.5 percent. A year after passage, it was continuing to rise, reaching a peak of 10.8 percent. In Iowa, we faced the worst farm and small-town prices since the Great Depression. I have a chart in the Chamber that depicts what happened after the 1981 tax bill was passed. It shows the unemployment rate going up and up and up and up and up all the time. That was the result of that 1981 tax bill. While the economy did get back on track, it did thanks to a sharp cut in interest rates by the Federal Reserve in 1982. But the adverse effects of this misguided tax policy remained. The Federal deficit climbed from 2.7 percent of the gross domestic product to over 5 percent--double. More importantly, over time, the Government's publicly held debt multiplied fivefold as well. This failed philosophy is now being put into practice for the second time with the first Bush tax cut and now with this proposed second tax cut. That is why I call those who support this failed economic program ``red ink'' Republicans. Maybe, as we move ahead if this is the course Republicans choose, I say to the Presiding Officer, we should replace the symbol of the Republican Party with something more fitting. Rather than an elephant that is supposed to have a great memory, perhaps the symbol of the Republican Party ought to be a big bottle of red ink, because every chance that these ``red ink'' Republicans get, they leave us swimming in red ink in this country. They did it in 1981. They are doing it again now--deficits, deficits, deficits as far as the eye can see. This chart shows what happened during the 1980s. The deficits climbed. Then, in 1993, we enacted the Clinton economic program. Look what happened to the deficits. Down they came. Down they came, until we had the largest surplus on record. Then we hit 2001, and another trickle-down economic tax plan, with deficits soaring again. And again, we are swimming in red ink in this country. The trickle-down, red-ink tax cut in 1981 did not get folks to work then, and it isn't now. Just look at how many of my Republican friends reacted to the recent appointment of Stephen Friedman to the chairmanship of the President's National Economic Council. Many vocally opposed Mr. Friedman's appointment because, of all things, he was a member of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan organization focused on doing away with the deficits. They certainly did not want anyone like that as the Chairman of the President's National Economic Council. I think the case of Mr. Friedman signals the modern day Republican Party's total abandonment of fiscal discipline. It began in 1981. It continued through the 1990s as Republicans, to a person here in the Congress, opposed President Clinton's economic plan, a plan that balanced the budget, brought us a surplus, created 22 million new jobs, and gave us the longest economic expansion in America's history. Now these ``red ink'' Republicans are still at it today. We heard all kinds of arguments in 1993--I was here--from my friends on the other side of the aisle about how terrible this 1993 recovery plan was going to be. Why, it was just going to be awful. It was going to destroy this country. And yet, as I said, it created one of the longest economic expansions in our Nation's history. Not one Republican voted for it. One trickle-down Republican after another united in one prediction: that the 1993 bill was going to ruin the economy. Well, let's take a look at what happened, after that 1993 bill was passed, in terms of unemployment. Unemployment was high. We passed the bill and unemployment came down. It came down, in fact, to the lowest point in our Nation's recent history; down to about 4 percent in the late 1990s. Now we come to the end of 2000. We have our country on course. We have a record surplus. We have predicted surpluses for this decade of over $5 trillion; a healthy basis on which we could now begin to address the needs of the baby boomers as they start to retire, reduce the public debt, get our economy on a sound keel, and then, when the baby boomers retire, we will have the wherewithal to meet those needs of Social Security and Medicare. That is where we were at the beginning of the Bush Presidency in 2001. That was until President Bush sent down his tax proposal of 2001. The Congress passed it and sent it to the President. The price tag was supposed to be $1.35 trillion, but the actual cost was much higher. It was only by using some accounting gimmicks and tricks that would even make Ken Lay of Enron blush. The actual cost goes much higher. The 2001 tax bill was structured in another interesting way. In 2001, those in the top 1 percent of income--with incomes averaging over $1 million got under 10 percent of the benefits. For 2002 and 2003, they get under 20 percent of the benefits. By 2006, they are scheduled the get over a third of the benefits. And in 2010, they get over 50 percent of the benefits. This truly is trickle-down economics. The top 1 percent's share of the Bush tax cuts--see, it is a kind of little trick. It starts out low, but look what happens when we go through the decade. And we wind up in a decade where over 50 percent of the Bush tax cut goes to the top 1 percent, the wealthiest people in this country. What did President Bush tell us at the time in trying to pass this bill? I quote here from a speech he gave at Western Michigan State: Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surpluses in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001. President Bush gave that speech on March 27, 2001: . . . we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. . . . We went from a surplus, the largest on budget surplus in our Nation's history of $83 billion, to over a $300 billion deficit just two years later; a shift of over $400 billion in just two years. $\1/2\ trillion in surpluses wiped out in 2 years of this Presidency. And he said there would be no fear of budget deficits. Well, maybe the President doesn't fear budget deficits; maybe like President Reagan. Maybe they don't care, but the middle class in America, the baby boomers about ready to retire better fear it because it is eating right into Social Security. That is exactly what it is doing. Then he says, ``projections for the surpluses in my budget.'' Can you believe that his budget actually projected surpluses when in the very first year it plunges us into the biggest deficits we have ever had? I can only say that if I were President and my economic advisers had given me this plan and written this speech for me, which I assume they probably did for him, and it turned out the way it turned out, I would fire the whole lot of them. Obviously, they didn't know what they were talking about. Either that or they knew what they were doing, they knew what they were talking about, and they were pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people. I tend to think that is really what it was about. It was a scheme to reward those who had done the most to help this President get elected, a massive tax cut for the wealthiest in our country. Two years after this quote, here is the Bush economic record: The estimated 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion is wiped out; this year's on-budget deficit, $319 billion as estimated by the CBO. The economy has shed 2 million jobs, the worst record of negative job creation of any President in more than 50 years. I must hand it to this President. All this was done in 2 years. It is amazing. The latest unemployment is about 6 percent. This is where we came from: 4.5 percent in April, 2001 when the bill became law. After 18 months, it is still going up. Hang on. That is why we need a short-term stimulus to stop the rise in unemployment. Quite frankly, the President's program of slashing taxes on dividends will not do that. I will explain that. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that: The tax cut would cost the Treasury approximately $4 trillion in the decade after 2011, the same period when the baby boomers will begin to retire in large numbers and the cost of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and long- term care will rise substantially as a result. Yet it is during that same decade, after 2010, that the cost of a permanent tax cut would explode as all of its revenue losing provisions would then be fully in effect. As I pointed out, after it goes fully into effect, well over half of it goes to the top 1 percent of our country. And yet those who rely on Social Security and Medicare and long-term care are the ones put at risk. Continuing: [If] the tax cut takes full effect as scheduled and continues after 2010, the long-term cost will substantially exceed the 75-year deficit projected within Social Security. In fact, if the tax cut were just scaled back so that three- fifths of it took effect while the funds of the other two- fifths were used to strengthen Social Security, the entire 75-year projected deficit of Social Security could be eliminated. There you have it. You have your priorities. Do you want to shore up and secure Social Security for the next 75 years, or do you want to give the top 1 percent of our country more tax breaks? That is the course we face. That is the course we have to change: Going from an $86 billion budget surplus to a $318 billion deficit, a shift of over $400 billion. The economic record of this President is one of fiscal mismanagement, economic stagnation, rising unemployment, and jeopardizing the jobs and the futures of our middle-class families and jeopardizing the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare. That is why we have to change course now. I said, we need to begin with a stimulus package to stop the rise in unemployment. In the coming debate, the President has already accused some of us on our side of playing ``class warfare.'' But it is the President's own tax cut of 2 years ago that already declared class warfare, class warfare on the middle class. Take from the middle class, give to the wealthiest 1 percent. If that is not class warfare, I don't know what is. Middle-class families are not getting their fair share of tax relief. They are not seeing their incomes rise. Many are losing their jobs. And every day hundreds of thousands of working families go without any health insurance. Millions of Americans are already without any health insurance coverage whatsoever; every day hundreds of thousands more are added to the rolls. For some reason the President cannot see the pain that his economic policies are causing. The President's refusal to see his own mistakes reminds me of that scene from the Caine Mutiny. The ship was sailing through a typhoon. It was in danger of floundering, but stubbornly and rigidly, Captain Queeg tells the helmsman to hold course, because Queeg refused to listen. He refused to see the danger ahead. He could not save the ship. Just like the crew of the Caine, our first loyalty is in saving the ship, not protecting the captain, not blindly following what the captain says when we plainly know what lies ahead. That is why it is time for us to change America's economic course. We need to provide an immediate stimulus to put people to work. The President made his proposal. It is more of the same--more tax cuts for the wealthiest, little for working and middle-class families. The centerpiece of the President's new proposal is the elimination of dividend taxes at an estimated cost of $364 billion over 10 years. According to the tax policy center, about 45 percent of these benefits will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers. Sound familiar? It should. We did the same thing 2 years ago. Here are the facts: A 100-percent reduction in dividend taxes, plus the other components of the Bush economic plan, would provide for those who make more than a million dollars a year over $88,000 in tax cuts this year, 2003. For my fellow average Iowan making between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, they will get $204 in 2003. So I guess the President is right. Everybody gets a little something--yes, average working families get the crumbs from the table and the wealthy get the smorgasbord. But, looking ahead, most of the benefits that went to average taxpayers dissolve. But, the linchpin of the plan that mostly goes to the top 5 percent, that continues on for the long haul That is class warfare. It is a direct frontal assault on the middle class in America. But not only is the Bush plan class warfare, it mortgages our future by raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And now it will shortchange key investments in education, health care, and homeland security. I predict--and I will come to the floor next week and apologize if I am wrong--that the appropriations bills that will be brought up by the Republican side to be added to the continuing resolution for this year will have cuts in education compared to what the Appropriations Committee approved last summer. I predict that there will be cuts in education. Quite frankly, in the budget for this year that the President sent up for fiscal year 2003, he actually proposed cutting funding for Leave No Child Behind. Secretary Paige was on television today saying that was wrong. Next time I see Secretary Paige, next time he comes before our committee for a hearing, I am going to get the White House's own budget book and lay out the programs for Leave No Child Behind and show him what the President's budget was. There was a cut of $90 million in the Bush budget this year for the Leave No Child Behind programs. Why? So we can pay for all these tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society. Trickle-down economics. We need to get a prescription drug benefit through for the elderly, but there will not be any money for it. Why? Because we are going to have a tax benefit, doing away with taxes on dividends, which benefit the wealthiest 5 percent. We will not have any money left for prescription drug coverage. So we have to change course. We cannot blindly follow the captain in his misguided economic policies for America. We must stimulate job growth now and it must not come at the expense of Social Security. I think the following elements should be addressed and should be passed to get our economy going. First, extend the unemployment insurance benefits. We need to do that now. We have considerable reserves and now those facing long-term unemployment need help. Of course, if they get that money, they spend it quickly and it helps the economy. Now, we did pass an extension this week that is short, but we need to do more. Secondly, we need to provide fiscal relief for the State. States all across the country, including my own, are facing huge deficits that they have to eliminate under their State constitutions. That means there are going to be big cuts in crucial services--often health care for the poor or the working poor, education for our children, housing, help for the homeless, things that States have to spend a lot of money on. Well, they will not have it. So we are going to need to step in to provide these crucial services. Third, we need to quickly put people back to work on things we need. I have been trying for years to get the Congress to address the need of rebuilding and modernizing schools all over America. We did succeed in getting a billion dollars into that program in the last Clinton budget for 2001. The results of that are now coming in from States all over America. That money was used to rebuild and modernize schools all over America. Our experience in Iowa--I can only speak about that because that is all I have the data for right now--was that for every dollar that we put into rebuilding and modernizing schools in Iowa, it translated into well over $20 of economic activity. It put people to work, it got money into the economy, and guess what we got out of it. We got new schools, new classrooms, better equipped classrooms for our teachers to teach in. There are many projects in this country that are truly needed. We can have people working on these within months. I was told when they were using this money to build a new school in Iowa with this money that not only did it put people to work immediately, but the whole chain-- everything from the electricians ordering electrical parts, lights and wiring, to those who put in the wallboard, ordering that, and the lumber and the tile and everything that goes into that. As one small restaurant owner told me, for the year and a half they were building the school, he even had people come in there buying lunches, so it even helped that local economy. This is what we need to do to get people back to work right away. Fourth, we need to pass a short-term middle-class tax cut that will improve our short-term economy without further harming our long-term fiscal health. I say that we should consider a short-term payroll tax holiday, paid through the general fund, that will put money in the hands of people more likely to spend it right now. If we had a payroll- tax holiday, people could get their money directly through the regular payroll checks, that will speed up its delivery and the likelihood that it will be spent now. We need to stimulate the economy right now and this would help working people left out of the tax rebates in 2001. Fifth, we must cut wasteful spending and close tax loopholes. I have outlined a series of cuts in Government spending that would do that. I say to my friends on the other side that we can have a significant stimulus package and we can take care of the unemployed, provide tax relief for middle-class families for this year, and reduce the size of Government at the same time. One of the first things we have to do is have competitive bidding in Medicare. Now, we have cut down the waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare over the past 10 years. It has gone from $20-some billion a year to around $11 billion or $12 billion. We have a ways to go. But the one thing that would save money right now and cut wasteful spending would be good old-fashioned competitive bidding in Medicare. We ought to do it and we ought to do it soon. I believe that the stimulus package should entirely be in the people's hands this year. The cost should not exceed $100 billion. And, that it could be more than fully paid for over the course of ten years through the implementation of reductions in spending by things like requiring competitive bidding on durable medical equipment and by eliminating the tax rate cut that only goes to the one percent of those with the highest incomes, averaging over a million dollars a year. We also need to eliminate allowing Benedict Arnold companies and individuals that make their home overseas in order to escape paying their fair share of taxes. Well, this, I believe, is the course of action we ought to take and not continue on the disastrous course we were set upon 2 years ago. And now we are asked to make it even worse with the new President Bush proposing tax relief for the wealthy. We need a strategy that adheres to these good principles: benefit working and middle-class families, focus on job creation, restore fiscal discipline. In short, America's new economic strategy must take into account the economic realities, not failed trickle-down theories or cynical political strategies purely for election purposes. When it comes to the economy, I will paraphrase President Bush in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention almost 3 years ago: You have had your chance. You have not led. We will. That is what we need to do. President Bush's response was to make permanent the 2001 tax windfalls which will blow a hole in the budget to endanger Social Security. Add to that another windfall tax benefit to the wealthiest in our country. By every measure, it is the wrong course for America. It will just ensure the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets stuck with paying both of the bills. It is time for a new direction. I am hopeful that in the Senate we can have a real debate over the best economic policies for the future of our country. When it comes to the economy, the President reminds me of the guy who is lost driving but he refuses to pull over and get directions. He just keeps going down the same roads over and over. Mr. President, it is either time to pull over and get directions or let someone else drive because it is obvious, Mr. President, you and your economic team are lost. It is time to return to policies we know work: Balanced budgets, tax cuts for working families, investment in education and health care, not failed trickle-down economics. Let's start the debate. Let's have the debate, but more than the debate, let's have the votes in the Senate. We can no longer afford to delay. We have to step up to the plate and change our course. We are now in the midst of a serious economic and fiscal predicament. We have to make some adjustments, some course corrections. We cannot cling dogmatically and rigidly to the same old policies that did not work before, are failing us now, and will jeopardize the future of Social Security and Medicare. Again, let's have the debate but, more importantly, let's have the votes to change the economic course in our country so that our middle- class families are the ones who benefit. Let's end the class warfare declared on the middle class by this President and his failed economic policies. Let's recognize that we are all in this together, and the best way to keep that ladder of opportunity there so people, yes, on the bottom can become middle class and, yes, those in the middle class can become rich is to change the failed economic policies of this administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe that we must put our energies toward ensuring that we protect the rights of nursing home residents and help them to resolve problems with the quality of the care that they receive. I am committed to working with my colleagues on this goal for fiscal year 2003 and beyond. I am also supportive of the notion that we need to ensure that the resource center continues to be housed in an organization as described by my colleague. I thank my colleagues for their support of the work of our subcommittee. I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues to ensure that these programs continue to serve older adults and disabled individuals.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Special Committee on Aging is correct in describing our efforts to steadily increase the capacity of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs. This very effective program is available to the 2.8 million residents of over 60,000 facilities including licensed assisted living. It makes a big difference in the quality of life for residents by resolving their complaints 231,889 about resident care and residents' rights, visiting facilities on a regular basis, and by advising residents, their families, and facility staff. We have also supported funding for the very effective Ombudsman Resource Center, which has been housed at the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform since 1993. I would like to see an increase for this important Center.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Pennsylvania and other colleagues who have recently been on the floor today, first in expressing happy birthday wishes to our esteemed colleague from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd. I just expressed those birthday wishes to him personally a few moments ago on this, as I told him, the 35th anniversary of his 50th birthday. Because in so many ways Senator Byrd has been a real pillar of strength in the Senate, standing up for the rights and privileges of the Senate, standing up for the demarcation set down by our Founding Fathers between the legislative branch and the executive branch of the Government. When I say 35th anniversary of his 50th birthday, I mean that because, quite frankly, Senator Byrd does not appear in any way to be one day over the age of 50. So I wish him the best on his birthday and wish him to maintain strength and good health to continue the leadership he has shown in the Senate for the last almost 30 some years. I also pay my respects to Senators who are leaving: Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Tim Hutchinson on the Republican side. Especially I pay my respects to Senator Hutchinson for his great work on the farm bill. We got a really good farm bill out this year. He was a very diligent and good member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and we worked very hard together in a bipartisan fashion to report out a very good farm bill for farmers and for rural America. I especially thank Senator Hutchinson for his efforts in getting that farm bill through. I also pay my respects to Senator Helms. Senator Helms was the chairman of the Agriculture Committee when I first came to the Senate. We formed a friendship at that time that has endured, although I am sure it is clear to anyone watching or listening that Senator Helms and I have probably not agreed too much on too many things, but nonetheless, we have maintained a very close friendship and respect for one another through all the years. I wish him the best in his retirement, and many happy years ahead for our distinguished colleague, Senator Helms. For those Senators on this side, Senator Bob Torricelli, again, I thank him for all the work he has done, first as the Chair of our Democratic Senate Campaign Committee that ensured we had the wherewithal in the election before last to win many elections and maintain our strength in the Senate. I wish Bob the best in his future endeavors. For Senator Jean Carnahan, again, I thank her for her 2 years of service here under very trying circumstances. I was a close friend of her deceased husband, Governor Mel Carnahan, who, as we know, was lost in a tragic plane crash a little over 2 years ago, right before the election, along with her son Randy. Senator Carnahan did a remarkably good job for Missouri and the Nation during these 2 years. She was diligent, hard working, and fought very hard for Missouri and her constituents. Again, I wish her the best in her future endeavors, and her family, to her son Tom and daughter Robin whom I have worked with in the past. I also pay my respects to Senator Max Cleland. Max and I do go back a long way. I first met Max when he was here in the Senate on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. He became President Carter's Secretary of Veterans Affairs when I was in the House of Representatives. Being a veteran and being a member of the veterans sort of group we had in the House of Representatives at that time, we couldn't have asked for a better champion for veterans issues at that time in the late 1970s than we had in Max Cleland. It was Senator Cleland who, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, set up the vets centers around the United States. There are now more than 200 of them. In every case I have been privileged to see a vets center, they are just sort of the heart and soul of outreach and a place for veterans to get help, if they need it, and a place where veterans can make sure they have access to the outlets of the Federal Government for job training and that type of thing, for education. That is his lasting legacy all over the United States. Of course, it has been repeated time and again about his great heroism in the Vietnam war, for which he received a Silver Star. I will miss him as a very close friend for all these years, and the country has lost the service of a truly remarkable, courageous, compassionate, brave American, Max Cleland. Senator Dean Barkley, our second Independent, came here from Minnesota under trying circumstances. I had not known him before, but over the last couple of weeks I got to know him, and I have a great deal of respect for him for what he has done here. Very few people serve for only a couple of weeks in the Senate and actually get a bill passed. Senator Barkley got his bill through, and I congratulate him for that. I thank him for his service here and, again, wish him the best and hope he will stay involved in public affairs, both in Minnesota and nationally. Tribute to Senator Paul Wellstone Lastly, I want to pay my respects to our departed friend, Senator Paul Wellstone. I did not want this session to end without saying something for the Record about the large gap left in the Senate by the untimely death of Paul Wellstone. Paul was my closest friend in the Senate. But in truth, Paul Wellstone was one of those rare souls who so many saw as their best friend. He had a powerful authenticity that made a miner on the Iron Range know that he was as important to Paul as the President of the United States. Paul never had to proclaim his decency; it shone forth every day in great acts of political courage and small acts of human kindness. He never had to ever say he cared. It just showed in how he greeted the elevator operators and the policemen outside. Sometimes we would walk over to the Hart Building and talked to workers on the ground. Everyone was a friend of Paul's and he always had a smile and a handshake for everyone. We saw this in him every day, in dozens of ways, from that hand over there at his desk relentlessly chopping the air as he stood on the floor speaking for those who otherwise had no voice, to the countless people he reached out to help across his State and across the Nation. The hard-working folks he cared about most didn't have lobbyists or influence, but they had Paul Wellstone, and he truly was their best friend. Everyone called him Paul--not just his colleagues but staff and citizens alike. He would not have it any other way. No one ever wore the title of ``Senator'' better--or used it less. In the days since that terrible tragedy, we have seen an outpouring of grief and admiration every bit as authentic as Paul was himself. It is a tribute to him and to the yearning I believe in this country for a politics that can truly be the noble profession of putting principle above the latest polls. Paul truly was the soul of the Senate. Sometimes he cast votes that even some of his friends disagreed with-- on war or on welfare. But when he did, he was the mirror in which we, his colleagues, looked at ourselves and searched our own hearts to ask whether or not we were doing the right thing. So we say thank you to the political science professor whose measure of truth was never in political theory, but the impact that his decisions and ours had on real people. Since he left us, Paul's friends and admirers have focused on Paul Wellstone as the lone man in the arena fighting a battle against injustice. Paul Wellstone was that. But he was also a doer who left behind a real record of accomplishment in the Senate. Paul was one of the Senate's leading voices for education, pushing for investments in early education, for class size reduction, and for student financial aid so working and middle-class families could afford to send their kids through college. And we worked together tirelessly to increase the Federal Government's investment in special education, so students with disabilities could get the education that is their right. Paul Wellstone worked alongside Senator DeWine to pass sweeping reforms of our Nation's job training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitation programs. By streamlining often confusing and overlapping programs and paperwork, Paul Wellstone's efforts are helping ensure that America's workers get the training and help they need to stay on the job or to find new employment. As a warrior for peace, Paul understood this Nation's duty to the men and women who bear the scars of war. Paul authored, fought for, and helped enact legislation to improve the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of American veterans. This law ensures that homeless veterans who suffer with alcoholism and drug addiction have ready access to the treatment and care they need and deserve. Paul also made a courageous push for a policy whose time had passed and should be done now, and that is mental health parity. Along with Senator Domenici, Paul authored the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, a groundbreaking proposal ensuring health care coverage of mental illnesses be provided on par with coverage of other medical illnesses. In the final year of his life, he continued to push for the expansion of mental health coverage, again teaming with Senator Domenici to introduce the bipartisan Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, which could expand parity for mental health insurance. I hope that in the next Congress, the Senate and the House will enact what I hope will be deemed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act, to finally put mental health on the same plain, the same level as all other medical illnesses. Paul once said, ``Politics is about what we create by what we do, what we hope for, and what we dare to imagine.'' Paul didn't just dare to imagine a better America--he helped to build it. Sure, he was willing to fight the lonely fight when he thought it was right and proper, but he also knew how to turn idealism and ideas, ideas into action to improve people's lives--investing in education, expanding health care, fighting killer diseases such as Parkinson's, helping homeless veterans, and veterans exposed to radiation. Because of what he did, family farmers will have a better future. Because of what he demanded, mental illness will be soon treated equally in our health care system. Because of who he married--his wife Sheila--and because of her passionate charge, more women and children will find safe harbor from the scourge of domestic violence. Paul Wellstone left us at a time when America needs him the most. He believed, as his champion and mentor Hubert Humphrey once said, that ``the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the disabled, and the needy.'' Those words, as much as anything else, form the focus of my public life and, I hope, the true path of my political party. It is a course in conscience that Paul Wellstone tried to set for his party and his country. But it now falls to each of us, those in the land of the living, to continue Paul Wellstone's journey for justice, to continue to speak out, to stand up and fight the good fight, and to lead our Nation with courage and conviction. The times demand it. In the coming days, may we all have the courage of our friend, Paul Wellstone. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I agree with your interpretation of that provision. I also want to provide additional explanation about a section that originated from our mutual concern about the safety of food that enters our country. Like you, I have been concerned that agencies that inspect foods and food products that come through our borders do not have the ability to share information in order to jointly track shipment and other crucial information. As a result, we crafted a provision, now included in this legislation, to ensure that information systems--i.e., computers--will be coordinated across agencies with border security responsibilities. This includes agencies that will be housed in the new DHS as well as those like the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety Inspection Service--that will not, but have a homeland security function.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I want to enter into a colloquy with the ranking minority member of the Committee, Senator Lugar, regarding the agricultural provisions in the compromise homeland security legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you for that clarification. Finally, we are aware that the Chairman and ranking minority member of the House Agriculture Committee, during consideration of this legislation in the House, entered into the Record their understanding of how these agricultural provisions would be implemented. While I question whether or not it is necessary to transfer Plum Island to the new DHS at this time, I concur with the House's interpretation of the provisions that are included.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I want to enter into a colloquy with the ranking minority member of the Committee, Senator Lugar, regarding the agricultural provisions in the compromise homeland security legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. I agree with your interpretation of that provision. I also want to provide additional explanation about a section that originated from our mutual concern about the safety of food that enters our country. Like you, I have been concerned that agencies that inspect foods and food products that come through our borders do not have the ability to share information in order to jointly track shipment and other crucial information. As a result, we crafted a provision, now included in this legislation, to ensure that information systems--i.e., computers--will be coordinated across agencies with border security responsibilities. This includes agencies that will be housed in the new DHS as well as those like the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety Inspection Service--that will not, but have a homeland security function.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you for that clarification. Finally, we are aware that the Chairman and ranking minority member of the House Agriculture Committee, during consideration of this legislation in the House, entered into the Record their understanding of how these agricultural provisions would be implemented. While I question whether or not it is necessary to transfer Plum Island to the new DHS at this time, I concur with the House's interpretation of the provisions that are included.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the expansion of NATO is a forgone conclusion. Formal invitations are expected at the Prague Summit next week for three to nine new member countries to join. In fact, NATO enlargement represents a logical extension of the first serious American intervention in European geopolitics; namely, the famous Fourteen Points of President Woodrow Wilson, which provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the nations of Central Europe in their long-deferred aspirations to gain political independence and international recognition. History has shown that the substantial disengagement of America from European politics between World War I and World War II, especially in Central Europe, left many newly independent nations in that region vulnerable to Russian and German hegemony. As my colleagues know, NATO was originally created to confront the threat of Soviet expansion and to counterbalance the Warsaw Pact. Accordingly, when the cold war ended NATO's continued existence was questioned because it had fulfilled its original purpose. Rather than disband, however, NATO's 16 member countries, led by the United States, have sought to redefine the organization to meet the needs and challenges of a new era. NATO member states more recently have taken on new tasks, such as intervening and bringing to an end warfare in the Balkans. Since the September 11 attacks, NATO has also joined the battlefront in the struggle against terrorism. Through it all, NATO has looked to uphold the goals and principles it was conceived to defend: democracy, security cooperation, stability, and peaceful problem- solving throughout Europe and North America. Critics of NATO expansion commonly cite article 5 of the NATO charter which declares an attack on any one member is an attack on all and obligates the signatories to assist the victim, as an unwise commitment with great potential to entwine the U.S. in foreign military conflicts in which U.S. security and vital national interests are not at stake. I joined those who were concerned, in the immediate aftermath of the cold war, that seeking NATO membership would require cash-strapped emerging democracies in Southern and Eastern Europe to spend too much of their national budgets on increased defense spending at the expense of meeting pressing shortfalls in education, health care, and other basic social needs. Nevertheless, NATO enlargement is and has been the policy of our last three Presidents--Republicans and Democrats alike--and seems to have solid bipartisan support in the Congress. In Warsaw last year, President Bush expressed his proenlargement views saying, ``all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom, and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe, as Europe's old democracies.'' At the upcoming NATO Summit in Prague, this alliance will once again invite more countries to join NATO, and I believe strongly that the Republic of Slovenia should be at the top of the list for multiple reasons. First, since Slovenia declared its independence in June 1991, the Slovenian people have made great strides towards becoming a stable parliamentary democracy. The Government of Slovenia is a tolerant one, granting its citizens complete religious freedom and many of the same civil liberties that we enjoy. It also respects the human rights of its citizens and an independent judiciary reinforces respect for the rule of law. An ombudsman deals with human rights problems, including citizenship cases. Minorities generally are treated fairly in practice as well as in law. Second, with a rich industrial history, a traditional openness to the world, and sound macroeconomic policies, Slovenia is among the most successful countries in transitioning from socialism to a market economy. It boasts a stable growth in GDP, which now exceeds the equivalent of $16,000 in purchasing power parity relative to this small country's per gross domestic product. Slovenia also ranks among the countries with the lowest degree of investor risk. The level of privatization achieved and many other measures have improved the competitiveness of the Slovene economy and the profitability of companies doing business with the European Union. Among the more than 144,000 registered companies in Slovenia, the greatest number are engaged in trade and commerce, followed by industry, services, real estate, construction, transport and communications. Following independence, small business flowered and now more than 90 percent of Slovenia's companies are classified as small business enterprises. Third, Slovenia offers the alliance a new partner to help stabilize and pacify the historically and currently unstable ``powder-keg'' region of the Balkans as well as Western and Central Europe. NATO operations in the Balkans have already proven the value of temporary bases, land, air and sea; transhipment facilities, transit concessions, airspace, road, and rail links, sea transport; access to national strategic intelligence, joint exercises in specific conditions, linguistic and other forms of civilian-military cooperation and medical services and Slovenia in NATO will help greatly in this regard. Slovenia also assumed many of these responsibilities already when NATO went to war with Serbia. Looking ahead, Slovenia's inclusion will further strengthen NATO's southern flank by bridging current NATO territory from Italy to Hungary and eventually perhaps its extension to Romania and Bulgaria. Fourth, Slovenian and U.S. Armed Forces have been developing ever- closer working ties through collaborative database and curricula development activities. Although this collaboration has not occurred under NATO auspices, it has helped lay a solid foundation for Slovenia becoming a full-fledged NATO member. For instance, after the September 11 attacks on America, the Government of Slovenia promptly offered intelligence aid to the U.S. in various forms and joined the antiterrorist coalition with full public consensus. Shortly thereafter, the National Assembly of Slovenia adopted the Declaration on the Joint Fight against Terrorism. Since then, the U.S. has deepened our involvement with Slovenia on other fronts as well. For example, the U.S. this fiscal year contributed an additional $14 million to the Slovenian-led, International Trust for De-mining and Mine Victims Assistance, ITF, which has become the premier demining program in southern Europe. Fifth, the Slovenian armed forces have made significant strides in modernizing and reforming their operations and equipment. The Government of Slovenia recently adopted a policy to transform the military from the present conscript army towards fully- professional armed forces. This fundamental change should accelerate the establishment of the main reaction forces of the brigade-size needed in order to be totally interchangeable and compatible with NATO tactics, logistics and equipment. A large part of the 10th Battalion of this force is currently deployed under the NATO flag in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Furthermore, Slovenia has invested greatly in the education and training of its military officers and troops, so that today there are about the same percentage of English-speaking troops in the Slovenian Army as one would find in current NATO member's armed forces. In fact, many top officers, more than 200, have trained in the American military education institutes. According to both domestic and foreign estimates, the Slovenian Government has allocated $320 million for implementing these basic defense reforms. In 1996, the National Assembly of Slovenia enacted a law mandating that all military purchases and acquisitions be in accordance with NATO standards for inter-operability. In short, the Government of Slovenia has already done much of what is required and remains very committed to achieving 100 percent NATO compatibility and fielding well-trained, effective armed forces. Parenthetically, let me also say at this point that I don't think requiring 2 percent of GDP in defense spending is necessarily a good indicator of maximizing the contribution of so-called mini-member states in NATO. Some NATO member countries actually count military pensions toward fulfilling this requirement, but how do such military expenditures actually contribute to the deterrence and effectiveness of NATO armed forces? To me, it would make more sense to identify specialized roles for the armed forces of mini-member states to optimize their respective contributions to the overall increased strength and versatility of NATO. Finally, Slovenia's sociopolitical development already mirrors West European standards. Not surprisingly therefore, political debate in Slovenia now centers on health care, environment, education, social welfare, and budget discipline. Since Slovenia's population is demographically old, the pensioners issue is now hotly discussed. While there is political consensus about the necessity for pension reform, sharp differences persist about the role the state ought to play in the new system and whether or not the system should be privatized. Their great national debate is quite akin to the current prescription drug and Medicare debate in the U.S. Clearly, Slovenia has made great strides in constructing a thriving democratic government, ready to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century. It is very impressive that the Slovenian people and their duly elected government have accomplished all this in a mere 12 years. The values and principles upon which their nation has been founded are many of the same values and principles that we have come to cherish in our own Government and to champion throughout the world. We should embrace our Slovenian brothers and sisters and invite them into the NATO fold this November.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my concerns regarding the confirmation of Michael W. McConnell to serve on the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, Michael W. McConnell is the most hard-line, impassioned, and consistent public foe of a woman's right to choose yet to come before the Senate. His legal views and philosophy are far outside the American mainstream. This nomination passed out of the Judiciary Committee on November 14, and came before the full Senate on November 15. Given the lack of time to review Professor McConnell's record, an absence of recorded votes in opposition to this nominee should not be taken as a vote of confidence from all Senators. McConnell is a long-time anti-choice scholar and activist whose views on the constitutional right to privacy leave little doubt about how he would rule in cases involving the right to choose. He believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that significant restrictions on abortion are appropriate, even while Roe stands. He has joined conservative political activists in calling for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, possibly even in cases of rape and incest. This issue of abortion is one in which thoughtful people of good conscience may disagree. However, it is my belief that Michael McConnell's core personal beliefs on the immorality of abortion and the moral status of the embryo, articulated repeatedly in numerous forums including law reviews, op-eds, and legal [or court] briefs, will make it difficult if not impossible for him to consider impartially the cases that would come before him as a judge. McConnell's view of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act also illustrates his inability to be impartial. Not only has he contended that the law is unconstitutional, but his view of the FACE Act is so colored by his opposition to the right to choose that he has expressed his admiration for a judge who blatantly ignored the law in acquitting defendants who broke the law. Anti-choice legislatures have demonstrated great creativity in creating innovative barriers to a woman's right to choose. The constitutionality of these new barriers is frequently determined by the circuit courts, and is rarely reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is my hope that the administration will begin to reach across the aisle to identify moderate, consensus nominees. The alternative will be an ongoing crisis in the judiciary. It is also my hope that Professor McConnell is not a harbinger of what is to come when Supreme Court vacancies occur.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the expansion of NATO is a forgone conclusion. Formal invitations are expected at the Prague Summit next week for three to nine new member countries to join. In fact, NATO enlargement represents a logical extension of the first serious American intervention in European geopolitics; namely, the famous Fourteen Points of President Woodrow Wilson, which provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the nations of Central Europe in their long-deferred aspirations to gain political independence and international recognition. History has shown that the substantial disengagement of America from European politics between World War I and World War II, especially in Central Europe, left many newly independent nations in that region vulnerable to Russian and German hegemony. As my colleagues know, NATO was originally created to confront the threat of Soviet expansion and to counterbalance the Warsaw Pact. Accordingly, when the cold war ended NATO's continued existence was questioned because it had fulfilled its original purpose. Rather than disband, however, NATO's 16 member countries, led by the United States, have sought to redefine the organization to meet the needs and challenges of a new era. NATO member states more recently have taken on new tasks, such as intervening and bringing to an end warfare in the Balkans. Since the September 11 attacks, NATO has also joined the battlefront in the struggle against terrorism. Through it all, NATO has looked to uphold the goals and principles it was conceived to defend: democracy, security cooperation, stability, and peaceful problem- solving throughout Europe and North America. Critics of NATO expansion commonly cite article 5 of the NATO charter which declares an attack on any one member is an attack on all and obligates the signatories to assist the victim, as an unwise commitment with great potential to entwine the U.S. in foreign military conflicts in which U.S. security and vital national interests are not at stake. I joined those who were concerned, in the immediate aftermath of the cold war, that seeking NATO membership would require cash-strapped emerging democracies in Southern and Eastern Europe to spend too much of their national budgets on increased defense spending at the expense of meeting pressing shortfalls in education, health care, and other basic social needs. Nevertheless, NATO enlargement is and has been the policy of our last three Presidents--Republicans and Democrats alike--and seems to have solid bipartisan support in the Congress. In Warsaw last year, President Bush expressed his proenlargement views saying, ``all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom, and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe, as Europe's old democracies.'' At the upcoming NATO Summit in Prague, this alliance will once again invite more countries to join NATO, and I believe strongly that the Republic of Slovenia should be at the top of the list for multiple reasons. First, since Slovenia declared its independence in June 1991, the Slovenian people have made great strides towards becoming a stable parliamentary democracy. The Government of Slovenia is a tolerant one, granting its citizens complete religious freedom and many of the same civil liberties that we enjoy. It also respects the human rights of its citizens and an independent judiciary reinforces respect for the rule of law. An ombudsman deals with human rights problems, including citizenship cases. Minorities generally are treated fairly in practice as well as in law. Second, with a rich industrial history, a traditional openness to the world, and sound macroeconomic policies, Slovenia is among the most successful countries in transitioning from socialism to a market economy. It boasts a stable growth in GDP, which now exceeds the equivalent of $16,000 in purchasing power parity relative to this small country's per gross domestic product. Slovenia also ranks among the countries with the lowest degree of investor risk. The level of privatization achieved and many other measures have improved the competitiveness of the Slovene economy and the profitability of companies doing business with the European Union. Among the more than 144,000 registered companies in Slovenia, the greatest number are engaged in trade and commerce, followed by industry, services, real estate, construction, transport and communications. Following independence, small business flowered and now more than 90 percent of Slovenia's companies are classified as small business enterprises. Third, Slovenia offers the alliance a new partner to help stabilize and pacify the historically and currently unstable ``powder-keg'' region of the Balkans as well as Western and Central Europe. NATO operations in the Balkans have already proven the value of temporary bases, land, air and sea; transhipment facilities, transit concessions, airspace, road, and rail links, sea transport; access to national strategic intelligence, joint exercises in specific conditions, linguistic and other forms of civilian-military cooperation and medical services and Slovenia in NATO will help greatly in this regard. Slovenia also assumed many of these responsibilities already when NATO went to war with Serbia. Looking ahead, Slovenia's inclusion will further strengthen NATO's southern flank by bridging current NATO territory from Italy to Hungary and eventually perhaps its extension to Romania and Bulgaria. Fourth, Slovenian and U.S. Armed Forces have been developing ever- closer working ties through collaborative database and curricula development activities. Although this collaboration has not occurred under NATO auspices, it has helped lay a solid foundation for Slovenia becoming a full-fledged NATO member. For instance, after the September 11 attacks on America, the Government of Slovenia promptly offered intelligence aid to the U.S. in various forms and joined the antiterrorist coalition with full public consensus. Shortly thereafter, the National Assembly of Slovenia adopted the Declaration on the Joint Fight against Terrorism. Since then, the U.S. has deepened our involvement with Slovenia on other fronts as well. For example, the U.S. this fiscal year contributed an additional $14 million to the Slovenian-led, International Trust for De-mining and Mine Victims Assistance, ITF, which has become the premier demining program in southern Europe. Fifth, the Slovenian armed forces have made significant strides in modernizing and reforming their operations and equipment. The Government of Slovenia recently adopted a policy to transform the military from the present conscript army towards fully- professional armed forces. This fundamental change should accelerate the establishment of the main reaction forces of the brigade-size needed in order to be totally interchangeable and compatible with NATO tactics, logistics and equipment. A large part of the 10th Battalion of this force is currently deployed under the NATO flag in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Furthermore, Slovenia has invested greatly in the education and training of its military officers and troops, so that today there are about the same percentage of English-speaking troops in the Slovenian Army as one would find in current NATO member's armed forces. In fact, many top officers, more than 200, have trained in the American military education institutes. According to both domestic and foreign estimates, the Slovenian Government has allocated $320 million for implementing these basic defense reforms. In 1996, the National Assembly of Slovenia enacted a law mandating that all military purchases and acquisitions be in accordance with NATO standards for inter-operability. In short, the Government of Slovenia has already done much of what is required and remains very committed to achieving 100 percent NATO compatibility and fielding well-trained, effective armed forces. Parenthetically, let me also say at this point that I don't think requiring 2 percent of GDP in defense spending is necessarily a good indicator of maximizing the contribution of so-called mini-member states in NATO. Some NATO member countries actually count military pensions toward fulfilling this requirement, but how do such military expenditures actually contribute to the deterrence and effectiveness of NATO armed forces? To me, it would make more sense to identify specialized roles for the armed forces of mini-member states to optimize their respective contributions to the overall increased strength and versatility of NATO. Finally, Slovenia's sociopolitical development already mirrors West European standards. Not surprisingly therefore, political debate in Slovenia now centers on health care, environment, education, social welfare, and budget discipline. Since Slovenia's population is demographically old, the pensioners issue is now hotly discussed. While there is political consensus about the necessity for pension reform, sharp differences persist about the role the state ought to play in the new system and whether or not the system should be privatized. Their great national debate is quite akin to the current prescription drug and Medicare debate in the U.S. Clearly, Slovenia has made great strides in constructing a thriving democratic government, ready to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century. It is very impressive that the Slovenian people and their duly elected government have accomplished all this in a mere 12 years. The values and principles upon which their nation has been founded are many of the same values and principles that we have come to cherish in our own Government and to champion throughout the world. We should embrace our Slovenian brothers and sisters and invite them into the NATO fold this November.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to address a portion of this conference agreement relating to enforcement of judgments obtained by victims of terrorism against state sponsors of terrorism. These provisions strike an important blow in our global struggle against terrorism. The purpose of title II is to deal comprehensively with the problem of enforcement of judgments issued to victims of terrorism in any U.S. court by enabling them to satisfy such judgments from the frozen assets of terrorist parties. As the conference committee stated, this title establishes, once and for all, that such judgments are to be enforced against any assets available in the U.S., and that the executive branch has no statutory authority to defeat such enforcement under standard judicial processes, except as expressly provided in this act. Title II expressly addresses three particular issues which have vexed victims of terrorism in this context. First, there has been a dispute over the availability of ``agency and instrumentality'' assets to satisfy judgments against a terrorist state itself. Let there be no doubt on this point. Title II operates to strip a terrorist state of its immunity from execution or attachment in aid of execution by making the blocked assets of that terrorist state, including the blocked assets of any of its agencies or instrumentalities, available for attachment and/or execution of a judgment issued against that terrorist state. Thus, for purposes of enforcing a judgment against a terrorist state, title II does not recognize any juridical distinction between a terrorist state and its agencies or instrumentalities. Second, title II amends Section 2002 of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2000 to address a miscarriage of justice in the drafting and implementation of that act. In that provision, Congress had directed that specified claimants against Iran receive payment in satisfaction of judgments from two specified accounts, namely Iran's Foreign Military Sales, ``FMS'', Trust Account and the proceeds of rental of certain Iranian government properties. Contrary to Congressional intent, the legislative language has been construed by the Departments of State and Treasury to exclude unspecified claimants and to allow the executive branch to bar enforcement of their awards against other blocked assets. As one United States District Court has noted, the result is a gross injustice that demands immediate correction. To address this injustice, we are adding to the list of those to be compensated, all persons who meet two criteria--either, 1, they had a claim filed when Section 2002 was enacted and have already received a final judgment on that claim as of the date of enactment, or 2 were added to the list by the State Department Reauthorization Bill enacted last month. In accordance with amended Section 2002(b)(2)(B), each of these claimants are to be treated as if they were originally included in Section 2002, and are to be paid an amount determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to have been available for payment of their judgment on the date their judgment was issued. Once these amounts are paid, any remaining amounts in these accounts are to be paid to remaining claimants under the formula specified in amended Section 2002(d). Moreover, to address this injustice, this amendment will treat all of these victims--those originally included in Section 2002 and those now being added--equally to the maximum extent possible. No priority is given to one group or the other. Those in each group which have filed timely lawsuits and received a final judgment by the enactment of this Act are to be paid within the strict deadlines set in the Act, i.e., within 60 days, without delay. Those not included within this time frame may pursue satisfaction from blocked assets. This will necessarily include some who, for whatever reason, have failed to obtain a judgment in their lawsuit by the date of enactment of this act. Third, the term ``blocked asset'' has been broadly defined to include any asset of a terrorist party that has been seized or frozen by the United States in accordance with law. This definition includes any asset with respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or regulated by the U.S. Treasury under any blocking order under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or any proclamation, order, regulation, or license. Moreover, by including the phrase ``seized by the United States'' in this section, it is our intent to include within the definition of ``blocked asset'' any asset of a terrorist party that is held by the United States. This is intended as an explicit waiver of any principle of law under which the United States might not be subject to service and enforcement of any judicial order or process relating to execution of judgments, or attachments in aid of such execution, in connection with terrorist party assets that happen to be held by the United States. In this respect, the United States is to be treated the same as any private party or bank which holds assets of a terrorist party, and such terrorist party assets held by the United States are not immunized from court procedures to execute against such assets. However, any assets as to which the United States claims ownership are not included in the definition of ``blocked assets'' and are not subject to execution or attachment under this provision.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this conference report includes bipartisan legislation that I authored with my colleague, Senator Allen of Virginia, which will make state sponsors of terrorism and their agents literally pay for the dastardly attacks they perpetrate on innocent Americans. Last June, the Senate approved our amendment to the terrorism insurance bill on an 81 to 3 vote to mandate that at least $3.7 billion in blocked assets of foreign state sponsors of terrorism and their agents, at the current disposal of the U.S. Treasury Department, be used--first and foremost--to compensate American victims of their terrorist attacks. That lop-sided vote made it very clear that most Americans and their elected representatives understand the importance of making the rogue governments who sponsor international terrorism pay literally, instead of blithely dunning the American taxpayer to compensate the victims of their outrageous attacks or doing nothing. Our global struggle against terrorism must be fought and won on multiple fronts. In so doing, we cannot forget that terrorist attacks are ultimately stories of human tragedy. The young woman from Waverly, IA--Kathryn Koob--seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the Iranian people and the American people only to be held captive for 444 days in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from LeClaire, Iowa--Taleb Subh--who was visiting family in Kuwait in 1990, and who was terrorized by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops in the early stages of the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia--Charles Hegna--who was tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers in order ``to punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the American families victimized by terrorist attacks abroad I have come to know. There is not a Senator in this body who cannot count additional American victims of state-sponsored terrorism among his or her constituents. What do we say to these families, the wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters? More importantly, what can we do, as legislators and policymakers, to mitigate their suffering and to answer their cries for justice? Those who sponsor as well as those who commit these inhumane acts must pay a price. That is why I sponsored the Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act, whose key provisions are included in this conference agreement. In 1996, the Congress passed an important law--the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act--with bipartisan support and with the support of the U.S. State Department. That statute allows American victims of state-sponsored terrorism to seek redress and pursue justice in our Federal courts. A central purpose of that law is to make the international terrorists and their sponsors pay an immediate price for their attacks on innocent Americans abroad. For the first time starting in 1996, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and their agents that is frozen bank accounts in the United States and under the direct control of the U.S. Treasury was to have become available to compensate American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who bring lawsuits in federal court and win judgments on the merits against the perpetrators of such attacks. The law enacted in 1996 only applies to seven foreign governments officially designated by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of international terrorism. They are the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. It is these state sponsors of international terrorism, not the American taxpayer, who must be compelled first and foremost to compensate the American victims of their inhumane attacks. The U.S. Treasury Department currently and lawfully controls at least $3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors of terrorism. But some officials of the U.S. Treasury and State Departments who think they know better, until now, have been flaunting the law, ignoring the clear intent of the Congress, and opposing the use of these blocked assets of Saddam Hussein, the ruling mullahs in Iran, and other state sponsors of terrorism to compensate American victims of terrorist attacks. In fact, in the on-going case involving the 53 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and held in captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice Department and State Department attorneys have intervened in federal court to have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto siding with the Government of Iran. Incredibly, since 1996 American victims of state-sponsored terrorism have been actively encouraged to seek redress and compensation in our federal courts. These long-suffering American families have complied with all requirements of existing U.S. law and many have actually won court-ordered judgments, only to be denied any compensation and what little justice they seek in a court of law. The opponents of this legislation apparently want American taxpayers to foot the bill for what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars instead of making the terrorists and their sponsors pay. With the passage of this new legislation, the Congress is requiring that this misguided policy be abandoned. Holding the blocked assets of state sponsors of terrorism in perpetuity might make sense in the pristine world of high diplomacy, but not in the real world after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the terrorists. This tougher U.S. policy will provide a new, powerful disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist attacks. Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and Iraq can be moderated. Third, American victims of state-sponsored terrorism and their families will finally be able to secure some measure of justice and compensation. Public condemnation by the U.S. Government of state- sponsored terrorism only goes so far. This new legislation enables American victims to fight back, to hold the terrorists who are responsible accountable to the rule of law, and to make the perpetrators and their sponsors pay a heavy price. In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this policy work. The Bush administration has not changed this mistaken policy as yet. That is why Senator Allen joined me in pushing this bipartisan legislation to establish two new policy cornerstones for our Nation's struggle against international terrorism. First, the U.S. will first require that compensation be paid from the blocked and frozen assets of the state sponsors of terrorism in cases where American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts and are awarded compensation. Second, the U.S. Government will provide a level playing field for all American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress by providing equal access to our federal courts. American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks upon them, including our former hostages in Iran and their families. The Congress should clear the way for them to get some satisfaction of court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, help deter future acts of state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my concerns regarding the confirmation of Michael W. McConnell to serve on the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, Michael W. McConnell is the most hard-line, impassioned, and consistent public foe of a woman's right to choose yet to come before the Senate. His legal views and philosophy are far outside the American mainstream. This nomination passed out of the Judiciary Committee on November 14, and came before the full Senate on November 15. Given the lack of time to review Professor McConnell's record, an absence of recorded votes in opposition to this nominee should not be taken as a vote of confidence from all Senators. McConnell is a long-time anti-choice scholar and activist whose views on the constitutional right to privacy leave little doubt about how he would rule in cases involving the right to choose. He believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that significant restrictions on abortion are appropriate, even while Roe stands. He has joined conservative political activists in calling for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, possibly even in cases of rape and incest. This issue of abortion is one in which thoughtful people of good conscience may disagree. However, it is my belief that Michael McConnell's core personal beliefs on the immorality of abortion and the moral status of the embryo, articulated repeatedly in numerous forums including law reviews, op-eds, and legal [or court] briefs, will make it difficult if not impossible for him to consider impartially the cases that would come before him as a judge. McConnell's view of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act also illustrates his inability to be impartial. Not only has he contended that the law is unconstitutional, but his view of the FACE Act is so colored by his opposition to the right to choose that he has expressed his admiration for a judge who blatantly ignored the law in acquitting defendants who broke the law. Anti-choice legislatures have demonstrated great creativity in creating innovative barriers to a woman's right to choose. The constitutionality of these new barriers is frequently determined by the circuit courts, and is rarely reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is my hope that the administration will begin to reach across the aisle to identify moderate, consensus nominees. The alternative will be an ongoing crisis in the judiciary. It is also my hope that Professor McConnell is not a harbinger of what is to come when Supreme Court vacancies occur.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this conference report includes bipartisan legislation that I authored with my colleague, Senator Allen of Virginia, which will make state sponsors of terrorism and their agents literally pay for the dastardly attacks they perpetrate on innocent Americans. Last June, the Senate approved our amendment to the terrorism insurance bill on an 81 to 3 vote to mandate that at least $3.7 billion in blocked assets of foreign state sponsors of terrorism and their agents, at the current disposal of the U.S. Treasury Department, be used--first and foremost--to compensate American victims of their terrorist attacks. That lop-sided vote made it very clear that most Americans and their elected representatives understand the importance of making the rogue governments who sponsor international terrorism pay literally, instead of blithely dunning the American taxpayer to compensate the victims of their outrageous attacks or doing nothing. Our global struggle against terrorism must be fought and won on multiple fronts. In so doing, we cannot forget that terrorist attacks are ultimately stories of human tragedy. The young woman from Waverly, IA--Kathryn Koob--seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the Iranian people and the American people only to be held captive for 444 days in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from LeClaire, Iowa--Taleb Subh--who was visiting family in Kuwait in 1990, and who was terrorized by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops in the early stages of the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia--Charles Hegna--who was tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers in order ``to punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the American families victimized by terrorist attacks abroad I have come to know. There is not a Senator in this body who cannot count additional American victims of state-sponsored terrorism among his or her constituents. What do we say to these families, the wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters? More importantly, what can we do, as legislators and policymakers, to mitigate their suffering and to answer their cries for justice? Those who sponsor as well as those who commit these inhumane acts must pay a price. That is why I sponsored the Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act, whose key provisions are included in this conference agreement. In 1996, the Congress passed an important law--the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act--with bipartisan support and with the support of the U.S. State Department. That statute allows American victims of state-sponsored terrorism to seek redress and pursue justice in our Federal courts. A central purpose of that law is to make the international terrorists and their sponsors pay an immediate price for their attacks on innocent Americans abroad. For the first time starting in 1996, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and their agents that is frozen bank accounts in the United States and under the direct control of the U.S. Treasury was to have become available to compensate American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who bring lawsuits in federal court and win judgments on the merits against the perpetrators of such attacks. The law enacted in 1996 only applies to seven foreign governments officially designated by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of international terrorism. They are the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. It is these state sponsors of international terrorism, not the American taxpayer, who must be compelled first and foremost to compensate the American victims of their inhumane attacks. The U.S. Treasury Department currently and lawfully controls at least $3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors of terrorism. But some officials of the U.S. Treasury and State Departments who think they know better, until now, have been flaunting the law, ignoring the clear intent of the Congress, and opposing the use of these blocked assets of Saddam Hussein, the ruling mullahs in Iran, and other state sponsors of terrorism to compensate American victims of terrorist attacks. In fact, in the on-going case involving the 53 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and held in captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice Department and State Department attorneys have intervened in federal court to have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto siding with the Government of Iran. Incredibly, since 1996 American victims of state-sponsored terrorism have been actively encouraged to seek redress and compensation in our federal courts. These long-suffering American families have complied with all requirements of existing U.S. law and many have actually won court-ordered judgments, only to be denied any compensation and what little justice they seek in a court of law. The opponents of this legislation apparently want American taxpayers to foot the bill for what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars instead of making the terrorists and their sponsors pay. With the passage of this new legislation, the Congress is requiring that this misguided policy be abandoned. Holding the blocked assets of state sponsors of terrorism in perpetuity might make sense in the pristine world of high diplomacy, but not in the real world after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the terrorists. This tougher U.S. policy will provide a new, powerful disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist attacks. Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and Iraq can be moderated. Third, American victims of state-sponsored terrorism and their families will finally be able to secure some measure of justice and compensation. Public condemnation by the U.S. Government of state- sponsored terrorism only goes so far. This new legislation enables American victims to fight back, to hold the terrorists who are responsible accountable to the rule of law, and to make the perpetrators and their sponsors pay a heavy price. In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this policy work. The Bush administration has not changed this mistaken policy as yet. That is why Senator Allen joined me in pushing this bipartisan legislation to establish two new policy cornerstones for our Nation's struggle against international terrorism. First, the U.S. will first require that compensation be paid from the blocked and frozen assets of the state sponsors of terrorism in cases where American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts and are awarded compensation. Second, the U.S. Government will provide a level playing field for all American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress by providing equal access to our federal courts. American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks upon them, including our former hostages in Iran and their families. The Congress should clear the way for them to get some satisfaction of court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, help deter future acts of state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to address a portion of this conference agreement relating to enforcement of judgments obtained by victims of terrorism against state sponsors of terrorism. These provisions strike an important blow in our global struggle against terrorism. The purpose of title II is to deal comprehensively with the problem of enforcement of judgments issued to victims of terrorism in any U.S. court by enabling them to satisfy such judgments from the frozen assets of terrorist parties. As the conference committee stated, this title establishes, once and for all, that such judgments are to be enforced against any assets available in the U.S., and that the executive branch has no statutory authority to defeat such enforcement under standard judicial processes, except as expressly provided in this act. Title II expressly addresses three particular issues which have vexed victims of terrorism in this context. First, there has been a dispute over the availability of ``agency and instrumentality'' assets to satisfy judgments against a terrorist state itself. Let there be no doubt on this point. Title II operates to strip a terrorist state of its immunity from execution or attachment in aid of execution by making the blocked assets of that terrorist state, including the blocked assets of any of its agencies or instrumentalities, available for attachment and/or execution of a judgment issued against that terrorist state. Thus, for purposes of enforcing a judgment against a terrorist state, title II does not recognize any juridical distinction between a terrorist state and its agencies or instrumentalities. Second, title II amends Section 2002 of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2000 to address a miscarriage of justice in the drafting and implementation of that act. In that provision, Congress had directed that specified claimants against Iran receive payment in satisfaction of judgments from two specified accounts, namely Iran's Foreign Military Sales, ``FMS'', Trust Account and the proceeds of rental of certain Iranian government properties. Contrary to Congressional intent, the legislative language has been construed by the Departments of State and Treasury to exclude unspecified claimants and to allow the executive branch to bar enforcement of their awards against other blocked assets. As one United States District Court has noted, the result is a gross injustice that demands immediate correction. To address this injustice, we are adding to the list of those to be compensated, all persons who meet two criteria--either, 1, they had a claim filed when Section 2002 was enacted and have already received a final judgment on that claim as of the date of enactment, or 2 were added to the list by the State Department Reauthorization Bill enacted last month. In accordance with amended Section 2002(b)(2)(B), each of these claimants are to be treated as if they were originally included in Section 2002, and are to be paid an amount determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to have been available for payment of their judgment on the date their judgment was issued. Once these amounts are paid, any remaining amounts in these accounts are to be paid to remaining claimants under the formula specified in amended Section 2002(d). Moreover, to address this injustice, this amendment will treat all of these victims--those originally included in Section 2002 and those now being added--equally to the maximum extent possible. No priority is given to one group or the other. Those in each group which have filed timely lawsuits and received a final judgment by the enactment of this Act are to be paid within the strict deadlines set in the Act, i.e., within 60 days, without delay. Those not included within this time frame may pursue satisfaction from blocked assets. This will necessarily include some who, for whatever reason, have failed to obtain a judgment in their lawsuit by the date of enactment of this act. Third, the term ``blocked asset'' has been broadly defined to include any asset of a terrorist party that has been seized or frozen by the United States in accordance with law. This definition includes any asset with respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or regulated by the U.S. Treasury under any blocking order under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or any proclamation, order, regulation, or license. Moreover, by including the phrase ``seized by the United States'' in this section, it is our intent to include within the definition of ``blocked asset'' any asset of a terrorist party that is held by the United States. This is intended as an explicit waiver of any principle of law under which the United States might not be subject to service and enforcement of any judicial order or process relating to execution of judgments, or attachments in aid of such execution, in connection with terrorist party assets that happen to be held by the United States. In this respect, the United States is to be treated the same as any private party or bank which holds assets of a terrorist party, and such terrorist party assets held by the United States are not immunized from court procedures to execute against such assets. However, any assets as to which the United States claims ownership are not included in the definition of ``blocked assets'' and are not subject to execution or attachment under this provision.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 20 years ago, President Reagan signed a proclamation designating the first National Alzheimer's Awareness Week. Today, as part of this year's National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, I would like to commend and thank all those who have worked to battle this terrible disease. As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for the National Institutes of Health, and someone who has watched many close friends succumb to Alzheimer's over the years, I have learned perhaps more than I wish I knew about this disease. In 1982, 2 million people suffered from Alzheimer's; today, the number is 4 million. By the year 2050, that number will rise to 14 million, and we will be paying $357 billion a year in health care costs, unless science can find a way to prevent or delay this disease. Fortunately, that goal is in sight. Researchers are finally closing in on what causes Alzheimer's; they are using cutting-edge brain imaging to figure out how to diagnose it; and they are studying everything from folic acid and statins to Advil and gingko biloba to see if any of these drugs and supplements can help delay it. Much of that research would not have been possible without the substantial increase in Federal funding that Senator Specter and I, working together on the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, have secured for NIH. In fiscal year 1998, when we began our bipartisan effort to double the NIH's budget, NIH spent $356 million on Alzheimer's disease. When Congress completes the doubling effort this year, that number will rise to almost $650 million. But it is still not enough. We need to raise that total to $1 billion as soon as possible, if we're really going to be serious about reducing the physical and economic costs of Alzheimer's. According to experts, delaying the onset and progression of Alzheimer's for even 5 years could save as much as $50 billion in annual health care costs. President Reagan's son-in-law, Dennis C. Revell, makes an excellent case for investing more money in Alzheimer's research in an op-ed in today's Washington Times. In the meantime, we are fortunate that so many people across this country are working to support Alzheimer's research and care. I have worked for many years with the national Alzheimer's Association, as well as with their local chapters in Iowa, and I can tell you firsthand that they will not rest until scientists find a cure. As the Nation recognizes Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month throughout November, I thank them for their dedication. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I see that in this legislation, there is an authorization for the Plant Genome Project, a program that had previously been authorized only in appropriations acts.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I think that is an important point because Senator Lugar and I worked hard in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize an agricultural genomics program administered by the National Science Foundation because we felt a balanced genomics program was essential to keeping U.S. agriculture productive and competitive. While I think the plant genomics program is an excellent one, I sincerely hope that any further increases provided for agricultural genomics be open to animal and microbiological research as will, not just plants. We need a balanced portfolio of agricultural research to best capitalize on the resources devoted to agriculture-related genomics research. I would not want anyone to think that the Senate was now backtracking on the progress we made with the passage of the 1998 agricultural research legislation.