Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Is the intent of the mangers in including this provision merely to provide a permanent authorization for the Plant Genome Project, and not to state a preference by the Senate for plant genomics over other agricultural genomics programs when it comes to additional funding provided through appropriations?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for that. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased that we are passing the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act that will make a number of useful tax changes benefitting our military personnel including the National Guard and Reserve. It includes a provision that I introduced that broadens the allowable membership of veterans organizations so ancestors and descendants can be members. This will allow veterans organizations, particularly at the local chapter level to preserve as tax exempt a variety of their activities which otherwise would be subject to tax as the number of veterans who are members decline. Unfortunately, because of opposition from the House, this measure does not include a provision passed by the Senate on an earlier version of the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act that I feel very strongly about. I introduced it earlier this year. It was companion to a measure introduced by Congressman Rangel. My bill blocks the ability of the very rich to reduce their taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that it will raise $656 million from a very few people who I call Benedict Arnolds. These are people who turn their back on their country which provided so well for them so they can avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. Under current law, there are special rules that apply to these former citizens that appear to recover funds lost to the Treasury. But, they are full of holes. Under the current regime, for 10 years after a U.S. citizen renounces his or her citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. taxes, the person is taxed at the rates that would have applied had he or she remained a citizen. Actually the tax is nominally on a broader base of income and on more types of transactions. In addition, if the expatriate dies within 10 years of the expatriation, more types of assets are included in his or her estate. But, the reality is that taxes are very often not paid. The reality is that once a person has expatriated and removed U.S. assets from U.S. jurisdiction, it is extremely difficult to enforce the current rules, particularly for an entire decade after the citizenship is renounced. The measure I introduced simply provides that the very act of renouncing ones citizenship triggers the recognition of tax. So, rather than collecting tax every time an asset is sold over the next decade, my bill treats all of the assets of an expatriate as having been sold the day prior to when the person renounces their citizenship. The taxes are due up front rather than over time. In regard to estate taxes, rather than attempting to collect the tax from the estate of an expatriate not in U.S. jurisdiction, my measure taxes the inheritance of an heir remaining in the U.S. in such a way as to remove any tax benefit from the renouncement of citizenship. Madam President, $656 million in revenue from these very few former citizens is a lot of revenue that must be made up by loyal Americans or in higher debt that Americans will face. I intend to reintroduce my measure at the beginning of the next Congress and will be working hard for its passage at the earliest possible point.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the debate here in this chamber is being held in community halls, meeting places and living rooms across America and across Iowa. Many Iowans have told me in recent weeks that going to war should be the last resort for our Nation and I agree with them. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. He invaded Iran before he invaded Kuwait. He has aided and abetted the suicide bombers. He is guilty of countless crimes against humanity. He has even used chemical weapons against men, women and children in his own country. I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein. Since the terrorist hijackings and anthrax attacks in America last year, which wantonly took the lives of more than 3,000 people, all Americans are rightly concerned about the safety of our homeland and united in supporting the brave men and women who defend us and the cause of freedom around the world. While there is not definite evidence of prior close collaboration between the al-Qaeda criminals who attacked our nation last year and Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt they might find common cause in attacking us and our allies at any time. Simply put: it is clear to me that the current situation in Iraq is an on-going tragedy for the Iraqi people and an unacceptable menace for us, his neighbors, and the world. President Bush is to be commended for calling on the United Nations to confront this menace and Iraq's flagrant disregard of past Security Council Resolutions. It remains to be seen whether and how the UN Security Council will meet head-on the direct challenge posed by the continued failure of Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq to fully comply with 16 resolutions approved by the Council since 1991, including an ironclad requirement that Iraq destroy all of its biological and chemical weapons, dismantle its nuclear program, and submit to rigorous international inspections to verify its compliance. But there is a right way and a wrong way to confront Saddam Hussein and to force him to relinquish all of the weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. Our policy, and certainly any fateful decision to actually go to war, must be made after careful deliberation and in full accordance with the U.S. Constitution and our Nation's laws. No President of either political party should be allowed to take our nation into war like the one that is now possible solely on his or her own authority. That is why last July Senator Specter and I were the first members of the Senate to introduce bipartisan legislation to require the Congress to debate and vote on a resolution to require the Congress to debate and vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force by American armed forces against Iraq before the President issued such an order. I think the President was right to provide additional information to the Congress and the American people and to put this issue before the Congress with the draft resolution of three weeks ago. In my view, that first draft amounted to a blank check for the President to go to war with Iraq and other countries in the region, whenever he saw fit, and regardless of whether we had the backing of our allies inside and outside the region or in the international community. I have said that I could not have supported that resolution. It was too broad, too unqualified, and too far-reaching. I am glad that since then Republican and Democratic Senators across the political spectrum have recognized the need to narrow and improve upon the President's initial request. Senators Biden and Levin, Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee respectively, held essential hearings and formulated thoughtful legislative proposals. Their work reaffirms that the focus of U.S. policy should be to secure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the establishment of a new, effective international inspections regime to enforce that policy. Their careful approach also underscores the urgency and importance of maximizing our diplomatic efforts to secure the strongest possible U.N. Security Council resolution to force Saddam Hussein to relinquish his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction once and for all. I also took to heart the President's statement in his address to the nation Monday night in which he said that the pending congressional resolution giving him the right to use force if necessary, ``does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' That statement is consistent with the approach I believe in, which can maximize the strength of our coalition and the success of our policy. Accordingly, at this point in time, I believe the President and the Congress should be united and focused like a laser on getting the strongest possible, enforceable resolution through the U.N. Security Council. That is why I will vote for the Levin resolution and why I ultimately will vote for the Lieberman resolution, too, if that is the final choice. But I want to be very clear that in voting for these resolutions, this Senator is not voting for immediate war with Iraq. I am voting for them in order to give the President and Secretary of State Powell the maximum leverage to persuade the UN Security Council to promptly approve a new, tough, resolution that requires Iraq to immediately allow unconditional, unfettered inspections designed to secure the complete disarmament of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. There should be clear consequences that follow from his failure to comply. And the UN inspectors should be given enough time to complete their work and to determine whether Iraq can be disarmed short of going to war. I am concerned that if we immediately move to unilateral U.S. military action or in concert with only our British allies we will weaken our coalition efforts to wage and win the international fight against terrorism. This would also undermine international respect for the rule of law and the multilateral problem-solving institutions that America helped to create and which have served as the foundation for principled U.S. leadership in the world for 50 years and more. Indeed, I am concerned that precipitous U.S. military action against Iraq could result in our nation and world becoming less rather than more stable and secure. Under the terms of these resolutions, the President will be required to report to the Congress every 60 days on on-going diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council and elsewhere to establish a tough new inspections regime and to force Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. At that time, we will have the opportunity to examine the issues again. Nobody knows for certain at this time, including the President of the United States, how best to compel Iraq to get rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction. But we do know, we all agree, that war must be a last resort, not a first response. We must work with the international community as much as possible to find new and enforceable means to deal with the Iraqi danger in ways that make this a safe world.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, turn to the consideration of S. 2766, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I have every day and will every day we are in session, I will make a few remarks, and then ask unanimous consent to go to the education appropriations bill, to bring it up so we can debate it and get the funding out there for our schools. I have warned the Republican side, I said every day I am here, I am going to ask unanimous consent to bring it up. Our schools need this money. If we go to a continuing resolution, we could lose up to $1 billion in funding for special education. We could lose up to $700 million in title I so we can really help our schools truly leave no child behind. Pell grants for our kids going to college, there is an increase in the education funding bill for middle-class kids to go to college under the Pell grant system. That will not be there for them, either, if we go into a continuing resolution. Again, the Republicans are holding up funding of education. I don't know why. I have heard all these speeches about the President going around the country, banging on the podium, saying he wants the Congress to act. Well, we are here to act. We are here to move. The education funding bill passed the subcommittee unanimously. It passed the full committee unanimously. I have tried for 2 or 3 days in a row to bring it up. Yet every time I try to bring it up, there is an objection from the Republican side to moving to the education appropriations funding bill. I will ask unanimous consent again to bring this up today. I see we don't have any Republicans on the floor right now. I see my colleague from Oregon waiting to speak also on another topic. I know Senate comity requires we have at least someone from the other side on the floor before propounding a unanimous consent request. I have said repeatedly, every day I am here I will be offering this, so it should come as no surprise to the Republicans I am trying to bring up a unanimous consent request to move to the education appropriations bill. I will hold off a couple of minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon, and then when one of the Republicans shows up on the floor, we could interrupt his speaking to move to my unanimous consent request at that point in time.

Mr. HARKIN. While we are waiting, Madam President--

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I will every day, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, turn to the consideration of S. 2766, the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I, again, say I am sorry that we hear an objection from the other side. We are not doing much around here. Every day we sort of hang around and have a couple of cloture votes and that is about it. We could bring up this education bill. As I said, it passed unanimously. That means both Republicans and Democrats supported this bill. It has money in it for Pell grants. We have a lot of middle-class kids going to college who are counting on these Pell grants. This bill had a $100 increase to help these middle- class kids go to college. Yet we are being denied the opportunity to get that $100 increase per year for the Pell grant. We just passed a leave-no-child-behind bill last year. I ask Senators to go and talk to the principals in the schools. Where are the resources to back them up? Without the resources, a lot of children are going to be left behind. So this bill has resources in it for title I--as I said, about $700 million. That is going to be denied to our public schools because the other side objected. Special education--almost $1 billion is tied up because the other side objects to going to our appropriations bill. I am sorry that the Republican whip has objected to bringing up this bill. But every day that we are here, I intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up the education funding bill. This is our ticket out of the recession. It is our ticket to a better future. It is a ticket to a stronger America. We can't back off of our support for education. I am sorry that we have gotten this objection on the Republican side. But, as I said, every day that we are here I will try to bring it up to get our education funding bill through. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. The appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education passed the subcommittee unanimously, and passed the committee unanimously. We are now in a new fiscal year. Our schools out there need this help. Every day that we don't pass it means they are getting less money for special education, less money for teacher training, less money for title I to help, as a result of the bill we passed just a year ago, to leave no child behind. So I have asked unanimous consent that the leader turn to the consideration of S. 2766, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of S. 2776, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader and the assistant majority leader, Senator Reid, for attempting to bring forward this Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. I am disappointed some in this body don't want us to move forward with this vital piece of legislation for the American people. I invite my colleagues to take a hard look at the bill. It is a good one. It is a bipartisan bill. I invite my colleagues, especially on the Republican side, who objected to bringing this up to take a look at the cost of our inaction and what it will mean for America's school children this year. As I have said, this is a bipartisan bill. It passed both the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously. One reason for that is the good allocation my subcommittee was provided by our chairman, Senator Byrd, and the ranking Member, Senator Stevens. Another reason is the bipartisan partnership Senator Specter and I have enjoyed for many years. I thank each for their efforts. Why can't we move forward now? Nothing is happening here. Look at the Senate. Nothing is happening. Nothing is happening, and we want to bring up our education bill to fund America's schools, and the Republicans won't let us. I ask why? Why is there an objection today to bringing up the funding bill for education? I have heard the President pounding on the podium in cities and towns all across the country saying the U.S. Senate needs to act. I agree. It is time to act. It is time to live up to the promises the President and this Congress made on education. We are ready to act. We didn't object. The Republicans objected to bringing up our education bill. Not incidentally, it is time to live up to the promise we made on a bipartisan basis to double the funding for the National Institutes of Health. With this bill, we would have completed that 5-year goal. Now that has been put on the back burner. With this bill, we could have completed that 5-year goal. And that is put on the back burner. It is all in jeopardy, as is the promise of the Leave No Child Behind Act. Last year we came together on a bipartisan basis to demand more of our public schools. We said the status quo was not good enough; we had to do better. Now, by not acting on this bill, we have passed mandates on our public schools, mandates about leaving no child behind, and now we are not coming forward with the funding to help them. Now we are going to do a continuing resolution. That is what they tell me. What does passing a long-term continuing resolution mean? I talk about that with my constituents. I talk about a CR, a continuing resolution, and their eyes glaze over. What does that mean? In real terms, the objection by the minority side today means $3.2 billion less for education overall for this year, the one we are in now, and $1.5 billion less for title I, which is most important for implementing Leave No Child Behind. Since the objection was made on behalf of the minority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, I point out that in Mississippi that would be $5.3 million less this year for title I if we do not get this bill through. The ink isn't even dry on the Leave No Child Behind bill and already we are undercutting the schools. I have talked with a lot of my principals in Iowa and they are deeply concerned about what is going to happen when they have to meet their annual yearly progress standards and yet we have not given them the tools by which they can do so. It will be a cruel joke on them to have passed Leave No Child Behind and not pass the funding. How about special education? A long-term continuing resolution, without this bill, means $1 billion less for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Again, since this objection was made on behalf of the Senator from Mississippi, I will point out that for Mississippi it means they will get $10.7 million less this year for special education because the minority leader objected to moving to the education appropriations bill. It is time we pass the money for special education. Last year Senator Hagel and I came together on a bipartisan amendment to do it, but the President and the House punted and said no. And they are doing it again. I say to colleagues, ask your principals and your school boards about their need for special education funding and you will find out how much it is needed. Because this objection was made today, $1 billion less will be made available to our public schools in America. For student financial aid--for those going to college--a long-term CR means $100 less for the maximum Pell grant, and not a single dollar more for student loans and other college aid. In my own State of Iowa, because of the downturn in the economy, we have seen a 20-percent tuition increase at our public universities. These schools are critical to helping middle-class kids climb the ladder of opportunity. Yet today the minority leader says no to helping these middle-class kids get a college education. The world has changed a lot from a year ago. There is no denying that. We have different priorities, as well we should. But if we cannot ensure that every child in America has the best public education, then what kind of a nation are we fighting for? President Kennedy once said of education: Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation. It is the private hopes and the private dreams of the families of these kids in public schools--in elementary school and high school, and now wanting to go to college--it is their private hopes and dreams that are being stunted by the objection by the minority leader today in not going to the education funding bill. We are here in the Senate. We are not doing a cotton-picking thing. We are just sitting around. Why? Because the minority leader will not let us do anything. They may think it is good politics. Maybe they can go out there and now argue: Well, we can't get anything done in the Senate. We can't get anything done in the Senate. Well, not because of what the Democrats are doing. We want to bring up the education funding bill. It is the minority leader who is objecting. The Republican leader is objecting. We could bring it up. As I say one more time, this education funding bill passed the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously-- unanimously. So for what possible reason would the minority leader object to bringing up the education funding bill when we are not doing anything anyway? It would seem to me we could bring it up, debate it this afternoon, and probably get it passed tomorrow, since it was supported unanimously on both sides of the aisle. It is time for us to act to get the money out for special education, title I, for elementary and secondary education, help for our middle- class kids going to college. The minority leader today has said no. He said that politics comes first. I think our kids should come first. Well, they have objected today, Mr. Leader. I will attempt again tomorrow to bring up the education funding bill, and every day that we are here, to bring it up to let the American people know that we, on this side, and I, as chairman of the subcommittee that funds education, want to bring it up. We want to get it through. I am just sorry that the minority leader has objected.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on October 3, 2002 in SR-328A at 11:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss a pending nomination for the Farm Credit Administration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, am introducing legislation that will help bolster two critical components of Iowa's and the Nation's economic future: healthcare and education. Across Iowa and America, we face a critical and worsening shortage of nurses and teachers. By 2010 there will be a shortage of 725,000 nurses. By 2020, that shortage will increase to 1.2 million as the baby boomers begin to retire and need more care. It's much the same case for teachers. In Iowa, 40 percent of our teachers will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years. And 17 percent of Iowa first year teachers leave the classroom after only one year. This is almost twice the national average. We'll need more than 2 million teachers nationwide just to replace the teachers that retire or leave the profession. Clearly, a shortage of nurses or teachers will have a profound impact on the quality of education for our children and the quality of health care for every Iowan. We have to do more to attract young people to these difficult yet rewarding careers. One reason young people aren't taking on teaching or nursing is because they're buried in college loan debt. According to the ``Burden of Borrowing'', a report by the United States Public Interest Research Group, 64 percent of students graduated in 1999-2000 with Federal education loan debt. Further, the average student loan debt has nearly doubled over the past eight years to $16,928. Young people simply can't pursue careers that are critical to Iowa's and America's future because their college debt causes them to enter into unmanageable repayment plans. Earlier this year, I spoke with college students from schools across central Iowa. Many of these students will walk away from college with a diploma in one hand and a $20,000 student loan bill in the other. When students loan debt keeps our kids from becoming Iowa's next teachers and nurses there's something very wrong with America's priorities. That's why I, along with my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, am introducing a plan to offer up to $17,500 of loan forgiveness to students who go into teaching or nursing for at least 5 years. Under our plan, students would get needed relief from loan debt and Iowa and America would get its next generation of nurses and teachers. That's a good investment in education, health care, and our nation's future. I think we've got a good chance of moving this proposal forward. President Bush has proposed a similar plan aimed just at teachers in a few subject areas. However, I am aware that school districts throughout the United States are faced with problems attracting and retaining teachers in more than just the areas of special education, math and science. Since the White House has embraced the general approach, I am hopeful they'll also support our broader plan for teachers and nurses. It's a common sense proposal that's focused on Iowa and America's future. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, am introducing legislation that will help bolster two critical components of Iowa's and the Nation's economic future: healthcare and education. Across Iowa and America, we face a critical and worsening shortage of nurses and teachers. By 2010 there will be a shortage of 725,000 nurses. By 2020, that shortage will increase to 1.2 million as the baby boomers begin to retire and need more care. It's much the same case for teachers. In Iowa, 40 percent of our teachers will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years. And 17 percent of Iowa first year teachers leave the classroom after only one year. This is almost twice the national average. We'll need more than 2 million teachers nationwide just to replace the teachers that retire or leave the profession. Clearly, a shortage of nurses or teachers will have a profound impact on the quality of education for our children and the quality of health care for every Iowan. We have to do more to attract young people to these difficult yet rewarding careers. One reason young people aren't taking on teaching or nursing is because they're buried in college loan debt. According to the ``Burden of Borrowing'', a report by the United States Public Interest Research Group, 64 percent of students graduated in 1999-2000 with Federal education loan debt. Further, the average student loan debt has nearly doubled over the past eight years to $16,928. Young people simply can't pursue careers that are critical to Iowa's and America's future because their college debt causes them to enter into unmanageable repayment plans. Earlier this year, I spoke with college students from schools across central Iowa. Many of these students will walk away from college with a diploma in one hand and a $20,000 student loan bill in the other. When students loan debt keeps our kids from becoming Iowa's next teachers and nurses there's something very wrong with America's priorities. That's why I, along with my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, am introducing a plan to offer up to $17,500 of loan forgiveness to students who go into teaching or nursing for at least 5 years. Under our plan, students would get needed relief from loan debt and Iowa and America would get its next generation of nurses and teachers. That's a good investment in education, health care, and our nation's future. I think we've got a good chance of moving this proposal forward. President Bush has proposed a similar plan aimed just at teachers in a few subject areas. However, I am aware that school districts throughout the United States are faced with problems attracting and retaining teachers in more than just the areas of special education, math and science. Since the White House has embraced the general approach, I am hopeful they'll also support our broader plan for teachers and nurses. It's a common sense proposal that's focused on Iowa and America's future. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback, Kennedy, and Specter today in introducing legislation that will provide hope to Americans living with paralysis. Recent news reports about the medical miracle Christopher Reeve has experienced this past year are an inspiration for every American living with paralysis as a result of a spinal cord injury. When it was announced that, for the firs time since his accident in 1995, Chris was able to wiggle his fingers and toes, there was hope for some of the two million Americans living with paralysis. Today, through the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act of 2002, we seek to achieve two primary goals. First to further advance the science needed to help those living with paralysis take their next step. And second, to time build quality of life programs throughout the country that will further advance full participation, independent living, self- sufficiency and equality of opportunity for individuals with paralysis and other physical disabilities. Chris' recovery and recent scientific evidence show that there is hope for those living with paralysis . At research centers in the United States, Europe and Japan, new techniques of rigorous exercise have helped an estimated 500 persons with paraplegic with limited sensations in their lower bodies walk for short distances, unassisted or using walkers. While the results of these new methods are quite miraculous, the limits of what physical exercise can do for patients remains grossly understudied. While each person and each injury in unique, and some people recover spontaneously, an estimated 200,000 Americans are living with spinal cord injuries that have not improved. Which therapy or combination of therapies will work for each person is unknown. Today 2 million Americans are living with paralysis, including spinal cord injury, stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, ALS and spina bifida. We need research to see how these new interventions work on the entire population on individuals living with paralysis. What we do know is the ordinary repetitive motions used in most rehabilitation centers, like squeezing a ball, are almost certainly not enough to appropriately address neurological injuries. Patients are usually told that after one year, two at the most, they will never make further progress in their abilities to move or feel sensation. Yet seven years after his accident, through a rigorous exercise plan, Chris Reeve is finally seeking results. Due to efforts led by the National Institutes of Health and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, our nation stands on the brink of amazing breakthroughs in science for those living with paralysis. However, the biotech and pharmaceutical industries have not invested in paralysis research because they believe the market does not support the private investment. There is an urgent need for the federal government to further step up its commitment in this area. The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act would do just that. By establishing Paralysis Research Consortia at the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stoke, we can substantially increase our ability to capitalize on research advances in paralysis. These consortia would be formed to explore unique scientific expertise and focus across the existing research centers at NINDS in an effort to further advance treatments, therapies and developments on one or more forms of paralysis that result from central nervous system trauma and stroke. Additional breakthrough are under way in rehabilitation research on paralysis. Federal funding for rehabilitation research at the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research at NIH is showing real potential to improve functional mobility; prevent secondary complications like bladder and urinary tract infections and ulcers; and to develop improved assistive technology. These rehabilitation interventions have the potential to greatly reduce pain and suffering for those suffering from neurological disorders and str9oke and, at the same time, save millions in health care expenditures. Over the past 20 years, overall days in the hospital and rehabilitation centers for those living with paralysis have been cut in half. Those living with paralysis face astronomical medical costs, and our best estimates tell us that only one-third of those individuals remain employed after paralysis. At least one-third of those living with paralysis have income of $15,000 or less. To date, there are no State-based programs at CDC that address paralysis and other physical disability with the goal of improving health outcomes and prevent secondary complications. This bill will, for the first time, ensure that individuals living with paralysis get the information they need; have access to public health programs; and support in their communities to navigate services. Ultimately these programs will help remove the barriers to community participation and help improve quality of life. The bill also establishes hospital-based registries on paralysis to collect needed data on the true numbers of individuals with these conditions, and it invests in population-based research to see how individuals are faring. We are on the brink of major breakthroughs for individuals impacted by neurological disorders and stroke that result in paralysis. This bill will ensure that the federal government does it part to help more than 2 million Americans. When Christopher Reeve was injured, he put a face on an issue that has been neglected for too long. Since then, his tireless efforts to walk again, coupled with his passion and commitment to improve quality of life for others living with paralysis, make him a role model for everyone. It is a pleasure, and an honor to lead a bipartisan group of Senators, along with the support of number of disability groups, including the American Stroke Association, the American Heart Association, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the National Family Caregivers Association, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Eastern Paralyzed Veterans, in introducing this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of Iowa's foremost leaders in medical and health sciences education, Dr. Richard M. Ryan Jr., has announced his retirement from Des Moines University at the end of this December. Today, I rise to acknowledge his many contributions to health care in the State of Iowa, the Nation and the world. Dr. Ryan's career reflects his lifelong commitment to community and population-based medicine. He began his career with a doctoral degree in public health from Harvard University, and has continued to serve on numerous academic and health boards, professional organizations, committees, and task forces. Harvard University, Boston University, and Tufts University have all been a part of Dr. Ryan's distinguished career in medical education and health services administration. Iowa was fortunate to attract Dr. Ryan in 1996, when he became president of Des Moines University. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Ryan created a new Public Health Program, significantly expanded the Des Moines University research enterprise, and laid the foundation for a campus revitalization plan. Under Dr. Ryan's leadership the University recently established a Geriatric Education Center on campus. Through all of these efforts, Dr. Ryan has helped to expand the reach and recognition of the University's medical and health sciences programs in Iowa and across the Nation. Additionally Dr. Ryan has helped forge new partnerships within the community and state. The university's modern research laboratories welcome students from Iowa's public and private undergraduate institutions. Faculty and students from the University provide ongoing health care services and educational opportunities to students and teachers in the younger grade levels within the community. A Navy veteran, Dr. Ryan has also distinguished himself through commitment to the welfare of veterans. He served as senior health consultant to the Chief of Health Services for the U.S. Coast Guard and as executive consultant to six medical directors of the Veterans Administration. In addition to serving both public and private health care interests in the U.S., Dr. Ryan is highly regarded for his experience and expertise in international medicine. He has served as a consultant to ministries of health and education in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Russia. Although I am saddened to see this great man retire, he has assured me that he intends to remain active and available to serve where needed, helping to ensure access to health care for all. I commend Dr. Ryan for his commitment to the health care needs of the people of Iowa and the Nation through his many years of visionary leadership and dedicated service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thoughts and prayers to the family of Jamie Christenson of Marshalltown, Iowa and Eric Hurst of Ventura, California. Bob and Debra Christenson suffered a terrible loss this summer when their young daughter, Jamie, died in a tragic swimming accident in Minnesota at the young age of 17. The Hurst family lost Eric, only 24, as he valiantly attempted to save Jamie's life. Jamie Christenson was one of 53 campers from Trinity Lutheran Church in Marshalltown who were at Camp Vermillion, near Cook, Minnesota. While on a canoeing trip on the afternoon of July 30, Jamie and her friends took a break from carrying their canoes around the more treacherous falls and began cooling off in the waters near Upper Basswood Falls, in Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Beyond the falls, Jamie and a group of campers donned life preservers and entered the water. There, in what had appeared to be calm and shallow waters, Jamie was caught in a swift undercurrent and pulled below the river. Several campers and boaters in the area rushed to her rescue, including Eric Hurst, who was working on the river as a canoe guide. Sadly, the river claimed both of their lives. The State of Minnesota and Governor Jesse Ventura have each issued a posthumous certificate of commendation for heroism to the family of Eric Hurst. It is my hope that the Senate can act in some similar fashion, or, that there can be some other Federal recognition of Eric's efforts to save Jamie's life. As the father of two daughters, I can think of no pain deeper than to lose a child. I offer my deepest condolences to Bob and Debra, their family, and to Jamie's many friends, as well as to the family and friends of Eric Hurst. In times of such pain, words fall far short of comfort we wish we could provide to those in mourning, but even words are we can offer. So I offer the words of the Greek poet Aeschylus: ``In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'' To the Christenson family and the Hurst family, I offer these words as a prayer for an end to their sorrow.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to recognize four outstanding women who the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women have selected for this year's inductees to the Iowa Women's Hall of Fame. Each year, the Commission solicits nominations of women, living or deceased, who have had a significant impact on society or their communities. Four nominees are selected by a five-member committee and the Commission and then are honored by the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor at a special ceremony. I'd like to add my voice to this tribute to four accomplished Iowa women. Bonnie Campbell has been a strong leader since she first began her private practice in Des Moines. In 1990, she became the first female elected Iowa attorney general in our State's history. She used her position to author and pass one of the Nation's first anti-stalking laws. By 1995, her work was recognized nationally and she was appointed director of the U.S. Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Office. She played a critical role in the implementation of the Violence Against Women provisions of the 1994 Crime Act. Now in private practice, Bonnie continues to serve as a role model for women. On a personal level, Bonnie is a good friend of mine and I congratulate her on this well-deserved recognition. Sue Ellen Follon's impact on women's issues was once described in the Des Moines Register this way: ``You may never have heard her name, but there's a good chance she has touched your life.'' A Volga native, Follon served as the executive director of the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women from 1976 to 1984. Throughout her service, Follon worked to expand the Commission's influence and scope, to strengthen rape and sexual abuse laws, and help public hearings on domestic abuse, displaced homemakers and the feminization of poverty. In fact, her efforts helped to make Iowa the first State in the Nation to legislatively address gender inequities in many facets of life. Follon went on to become the first woman to serve as Vice President at the University of Iowa. Throughout her career, she made over 150 presentations from the local to the international level on the subjects of women's equality, leadership, higher education and mentors for women and minorities. Born in 1942, Follon died on November 4, 1998, the day after voters passed the equal rights amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Alice Yost Jordan is internationally known as one of the most distinguished and published American composers. A Des Moines resident, Jordan is best known for her choral and organ works numbering over 200, which have sold over 250,000 copies. Her recital song, Take Joy Home, commissioned by Sherrill Milnes of the Metropolitan Opera and pianist Jon Spong, received world-wide exposure on concert tours and was performed at a White House State Dinner in 1983. Her arrangement of America the Beautiful, commissioned by the Iowa High School Music Association for the All-State Chorus and Orchestra, opens the All-State Festival Concert biennially. She has composed another 40 works that were commissioned by churches, universities and organizations across the Nation. Born in Davenport in 1916, she graduated from Drake University, where she studied composition for her undergraduate and graduate studies with the late Dr. Francis J. Pyle and received an Honorary Degree, Doctor of Letters from Grand View College. Shirley Ruedy of Cedar Rapids is a nationally recognized journalist, speaker and cancer survivor. Twice diagnosed with breast cancer, Ruedy launched a biweekly ``Cancer Update'' column that the Cedar Rapids Gazette began publishing in 1991. The column focused on her own experiences as well as providing the latest expert information on cancer treatment and prevention to her readers. ``Cancer Update'' is now carried in a publication from the Mayo Clinic Women's Cancer Program. Each October, in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Ruedy runs a column she co-wrote with a surgeon about the life journey of a breast cancer cell. Through her writing and speaking, Shirley Ruedy serves as a role model of courage and positive advocate for all of those who have been diagnosed with cancer. These women have aspired to high standards in their career fields and in serving their community. They also serve as an inspiration to young Iowans who can look to them for direction and leadership. I applaud the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women for recognizing their outstanding contributions. They are strong role models for all of us and deserve the highest praise. And they are some of the many special people who make Iowa such a great place to call home.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on September 17, 2002 in SR-328A at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill. committee on indian affairs

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment to provide disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Over the last several years, Congress has acted responsibly to provide help to those producers whose operations have been adversely affected by bad weather. I see no reason why this year should be different. This situation truly exemplifies an emergency in every sense of the word, and should not force us to deplete the long-term resources provided by this year's farm bill in order to meet these short-term needs. Already, this has been a devastating crop year for producers across the country. In the most recent assessment issued by the National Weather Service, nearly every State west of the Missouri River faces significant crop losses as a result of severe to exceptional drought conditions. A second region of the Eastern United States which includes most States in a block from Georgia northward to Maine and westward to Ohio is facing a similar situation. For many States, particularly in the West, this is only the latest in a series of droughts. We have only begun to assess the magnitude of this year's disaster for agricultural producers. From late July, press reports cite losses in the Plains States of $822 million in South Dakota, $687 million in Nebraska, and $267 million in Minnesota from both drought and flooding. With little appreciable rain during August in most drought-stricken regions, it is likely that losses have increased since those estimates were made. We have serious drought in southwest Iowa, and also experienced uncompensated 2001 losses in Iowa, mostly from prevented plantings. Other regions have also been hit. In Michigan, harsh spring weather caused USDA to declare 50 counties agricultural disaster areas, particularly affecting the cherry and grape crops. Hordes of grasshoppers are eating their way through pastures and fields in the Rocky Mountain West, including Colorado and Idaho. Rampant disease threatens Georgia and North Carolina crops. In mid-August, Maryland's Governor sought a disaster designation for all but two counties in his State. As a result of field surveys in late July, USDA is now predicting the smallest U.S. corn crop since 1995, at less than 9 billion bushels, and the smallest wheat crop since 1972, driven both by poor yields and reduced acreage. Although some farmers will benefit from the increased prices, those farmers with little or no crop to harvest will not. Western cattle producers, who have seen their pastures burn up in the unrelenting heat, face a choice of either buying hay on the market or selling their animals into a depressed market. There are currently no programs to assist these producers. It is true that many row crop farmers have crop insurance policies, which will offer them some relief, but the gravity of this situation demands further Federal action. These producers are facing the loss of their crops in the wake of several years of low commodity prices, thus pushing them deeper into a financial hole. With higher crop prices now projected by USDA for the 2002 crop year, it is clear that farm program spending will be lower than was originally predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. It was estimated recently by CBO that the difference could amount to $5.6 billion in LDP's and countercylical payments that will not now be made compared to the August baseline. That difference would exceed $6 billion when compared to earlier estimates of the farm bill's cost. Floods and drought have been particularly hard this year not only on producers' bottom lines, but also on our soil, water, and wildlife resources. Unfortunately, the money needed to take care of our resources under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program wasn't included in this package. I intend to pursue adding the money needed for drought and flood relief through this program in conference, and hope that we will be able to address these needs in the final conference report. I fear that unwillingness to act on this amendment could push many farmers to the brink of failure, and hasten the erosion of rural communities and small towns. If we truly want to assure economic security to our nation, then we must start with its backbone, our farm families and the rural economy they support. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the text of the letter sent to the Senate leadership yesterday by Agriculture Secretary Veneman, reiterating the President's opposition to disaster relief legislation for which the cost is not offset by cuts in the 2002 farm bill. I am disappointed that the letter was sent. I hope that we will be able to bring the White House and the House of Representatives around to the realization that assistance is critically needed and that it cannot be funded by taking assistance out of the farm bill and away from other producers. The Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC, September 9, 2002. Hon. Thomas Daschle, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Trent Lott, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Daschle and Lott: We appreciate your efforts to help farmers and ranchers who are suffering as a result of the 2002 drought. As you know, the Administration continues to take all action allowable under current law to assist struggling farmers and ranchers. This includes expediting emergency declarations and making emergency loans available to producers, the recent release of CCC-owned milk powder in order to provide a low cost feed supplement for cow and calf operations, and the opening of all CRP lands nationwide for haying and grazing. The President has consistently stated his support for additional drought relief provided it does not increase the deficit. The Congress has already provided the tools for drought relief for crop farmers through the heavily subsidized Federal Crop Insurance Program. The crop insurance subsidy was increased dramatically in 2000 to avoid the need for disaster payments. The vast majority of the crop acreage in the drought regions is covered by crop insurance. Over seventy percent of the acreage in the U.S. is covered and over eighty percent in South Dakota. Our goal should be to maximize participation in this program. Additionally, we recognize that ranchers and livestock producers who have been severely impacted by this drought do not benefit from the same risk management tools available to other farmers. The recently enacted Farm Bill provides $180 billion, an increase of $82 billion above the baseline. This $180 billion can accommodate funding for emergencies, economic assistance, rural development, and other purposes. One of the greatest benefits of the Farm Bill is that it ensures farmers have the resources they need. On May 24, Senator Daschle defended the farm bill spending levels, stating ``we're getting rid of those ad hoc disaster payment approaches''. The farm bill should break the bad fiscal habit of needing to pass emergency agriculture spending bills including drought, flood, or other supplemental payments that make it difficult for Congress to live within its budget. We support providing immediate assistance to those who don't have access to risk management tools, encouraging greater participation in the crop insurance program and providing relief within the resources of the current farm bill. If legislation consistent with this approach were to be presented to the President, we would advise his support. In the Senate, an amendment has been offered to the Interior Appropriations bill that would reestablish emergency payment programs for farmers and ranchers similar to those used for the 2000 crop year. We understand the cost of this amendment is likely to approach $6 billion. The Administration strongly opposes this amendment and any agriculture spending in excess of the $180 billion in spending provided earlier this year. This proposal would add $6 billion on top of the already generous Farm Bill only a few months after the bill was enacted. This is unacceptable. The needs for the current drought must be met within the additional resources provided for in the Farm Bill. We hope this information gives you the guidance you need in order to consider a prudent and fiscally responsible drought assistance package. I look forward to working closely with you through this process. Sincerely, Ann M. Veneman.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If I may ask the leader to yield, I have been here all morning. I thought there was no controversy on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate and the Congress and the President act promptly to address these inequities on the Medicare repayment, of which the Senator from Idaho has been a very strong proponent for a long time. I thought we were going to have a vote on it. I don't understand why we are not voting on this today.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, over 40 million Americans rely on Medicare for their health care security. For these Americans and their loved ones Medicare is a lifeline. And because of this Medicare must be protected and secured for today and tomorrow. Medicare, however, is not without its problems. Clearly, its benefits package needs to be updated to include prescription drugs. Seniors shouldn't have to make the choice between the drugs they need to stay healthy and food or heat. The Senate should once again try to craft a prescription drug plan to fill this great need. But there is also another problem with Medicare. And that is the principal subject of my sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Americans, no matter where they live, whether it is rural Iowa or urban Florida, are taxed at the same rate to help pay for Medicare-- 1.45 percent of payroll for both workers and their employers. And Medicare beneficiaries--whether in Brooklyn, IA or Brooklyn, NY--pay the same monthly Medicare premium. But while they pay the same taxes and premiums, the level of Medicare payments received by Americans often varies greatly from State to State. For example, my home State of Iowa receives an average $3,053 per beneficiary, which is 45 percent less than the national average. Some States are much higher than that. But there is a disparity between, say, $3,053 and the top State, which is over $7,000. It is quite substantial. And while some of the variation may legitimately be due to cost differences, costs alone clearly do not explain the degree of differences among the states. Much of this unfair variation is caused by outdated and nonsensical reimbursement policies that penalize efficiency and conservative medical practices. Medicare assumes that it costs much less to provide health care in rural areas, and assumes that we still compete locally and regionally for health care professionals. Those of us in under- reimbursed states know that neither of these is true. Rural areas don't enjoy the economies of scale enjoyed by their urban counterparts, and we are competing in a national and often global market for health care professionals. The impact is real. For example, if the same hospital in Des Moines providing the same services to the same seniors in Cincinnati, OH, it would receive $5.3 million more per year. If we put it in Ann Arbor, MI, it would receive $14.6 million more per year. What is the result of this unfair variation? Well, in Iowa, one substantial result is that we have a shortage of virtually all types of health care professionals. Low reimbursement equals low wages, equals health professional shortages. Iowa ranks 50th in Medicare reimbursement and we rank 50th in nursing pay. So it is no surprise that we have 3,000 unfilled registered nurse positions, another 728 vacancies for licensed practical nurses, and 2,700 openings for nonlicensed personnel. Add this to the fact that our nurses are getting older, not enough new nurses are entering the field, and Iowa has the largest population of any State over age 85, and what you have is a real recipe for disaster. It gets worse. Medicare payments influence Medicaid reimbursement and private payer reimbursement. Because of this, Iowa ranks 49th in the ratio of general pediatricians per 100,000 children, and 50th in the ratio of OB/GYNs to 1,000 live births. So it is no wonder we can't recruit and keep health care professionals. A physician performing a hip replacement in New York receives $1,807.25, while one in Iowa receives $1,304.09, and one in South Dakota only receives $1,286.46. The same amount of work, time, and skill goes into the same procedure. Yet there is a vast difference in the reimbursement to each provider. It takes the same amount of education, skill, and time in Iowa as it does in other States, and these professionals should be reimbursed accordingly. So there are changes that must be made to bring greater fairness and improve the health care systems across the States. There are many different proposals in the Senate that attempt to tackle this issue. I think people on both sides of the aisle can come together, as we have in the past, on this issue. I know we are very busy with many important pieces of legislation, including the homeland security bill and appropriations bills. But the resolution I am offering is very simple. Its resolve clause simply reads: Congress (acting through the appropriate authorization process) and the President should act promptly to address the disparity among the States in the amount of payments made under the Medicare program; and Legislation should be passed [promptly] that reduces unfair geographic disparity in Medicare payment rates and restores scheduled inappropriate reductions in Medicare payment rates. So, Madam President, it is a very simple, straightforward resolution. It just says we in the Congress and the White House, the President, ought to do something very promptly to address this huge disparity among the States. As I said, maybe you can have some disparity based upon rental rates and things like that. I understand that. But to say one State would get $3,000 and another State $7,000, this is just nonsensical. So the States that fall below the average are the ones that are getting hurt the most. All my resolution says is that we ought to act promptly, in a bipartisan fashion, to address this issue and to make Medicare more even, more fair across the States. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I see my colleague in the Chamber. I did not see him on the floor. He is my colleague in this endeavor, Senator Craig from Idaho. He and I have worked together on this for a long time. He knows exactly what I am talking about because of the great disparity in his State. I thank the Senator from Idaho for working in a great bipartisan fashion to try to get something done to resolve this issue. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. HARKIN. It is my understanding that the Finance Committee people had this for some time and look at it.