Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3459, which is at the desk, cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, and Kennedy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have now offered has to do with the issue of child labor in world trade. I would like to speak for a while because, among all the things we have talked about regarding trade and what we are promoting, I believe one of the most important elements, in terms of moving ahead in the world economic order that is going to break down barriers of trade, one of the most important facets is how we address the issue of child labor. Increased world trade should not be an end in itself. It must also be a means of achieving more economic fairness, social justice, and broad- based sustainable development throughout the global economy. Accordingly, as we debate this trade bill, this Senate faces a critical test of our nation's moral resolve as well as our economic leadership. The practical challenge before us is to help fashion enforceable rules for a new global economy. It must be a global economy that rewards working families in America and abroad as much as it benefits transnational corporations, investors, and consumers. I have long supported policies to open foreign markets to our nation's exports through new trade agreements and through combating unfair trade practices. I believe that new trade agreements--on the right terms--offer many new opportunities for our nation's economy to grow and thrive. I hope I am also a realist. Global economic integration is proceeding at an accelerating pace, fueled by private sector forces beyond the control of any national government. But markets are not self- actualizing and they certainly do not concern themselves with fairness or equity, left to themselves. Therefore, the real role of government at all levels now is to help define the terms on which globalization will proceed. This trade debate is not about free trade versus protectionism. Those are empty labels that cloud our real choices. And we all know that there are winners and losers every time our country enters into a new trade agreement. Our task is to make certain that the terms of every new trade agreement maximize the winners and minimize the losers. Some argue that the losers in international trade are just those caught in the whirling winds of globalization--victims of the magic of the marketplace who must fend for themselves. It is not that simple and its not accidental. We choose who and what we protect. For example, the WTO currently spells out enforceable rules on capital subsidies and product dumping to promote fair competition in international trade, but WTO rules don't do the same for child labor. When it comes to abusive child labor, anything goes. Binding international agreements and U.S. trade laws rigorously protect intellectual property rights now, but not internationally recognized worker rights such as stopping the worst forms of child labor. We protect CDs, endangered plants, and spotted turtles, but not children who are brutally and systematically exploited in the global workplace. And so today, I say it's time that trade agreements extended their protection to those who need it most--the exploited child laborers who help make and process many products were consume every day. According to the best estimates released 10 days ago by the International Labor Organization, there are at least 352 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 17 who are engaged in today's global economy. At least 246 million of these powerless working children are involved in abusive child labor which the business, trade union, and government officials in the ILO agree should be abolished. Think about that--at least 246 million child laborers who have never seen the inside of a classroom. As many as 60 million of them are engaged in the worst forms of child labor. They are often killed or maimed for life. They are robbed of their childhood and denied any hope for a brighter future. To put this in perspective, imagine a country as populous as the United States and Mexico combined in which the entire population is made up of child laborers. Within that population would be an underclass of children roughly equal to all of the people living in Germany, France, Great Britain, and Spain combined who work in conditions that cripple their bodies and minds, stunt their growth, deny them access to basic education, and shorten their impoverished lives. Now I suspect some of my colleagues are going to argue today that child labor has nothing to do with international trade. But they are dead wrong. I want to show my colleagues some of the faces of these child laborers associated with various tainted manufactured products and other goods flowing freely in international trade as we speak here today. I would like to tell you a little something about their working conditions. On the first chart here is Silgi. Silgi was 3 when this picture was taken. She started knotting soccer balls to help her mother and four sisters make 75 cents a day. Her mother and four sisters and her altogether make 75 cents a day knotting these soccer balls, which our kids use on the soccer fields in America. This is Tariq. Tariq is a 12-year-old Pakistani boy. He stitches these leather pieces together to make soccer balls. Pakistan produces 5 million soccer balls a year, just for the U.S. market. Tariq earns 60 cents a day making these soccer balls. As you can see, they have the nice swoosh on them there. You know they are not using these in Pakistan. This is what our kids are playing with on those soccer fields every Saturday when we take them down to play. Think about it. Think about it the next time your kid kicks that soccer ball. Think about Tariq, 12 years old, making 60 cents a day. He is not in school. He is not learning anything. These soccer balls, obviously, go into international trade. This is a photo of a sign. Three years ago, in early 1999, I took a trip to Southeast Asia to look at the issue of child labor. I was in Katmandu, in Nepal, when a former child laborer sought me out. I knew of him through other contacts. I had never met him before. I met him after dark on a Sunday night. He had arranged to visit a clandestine place where they make carpets. He knew the guard at the gate. He also knew, he thought, that the owner was gone. So we drove down there. As we came up to the gate, here was the sign posted outside of this gate. It says in Nepalese but also in English: Child labor under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited. This is not a doctored document. I took this picture. I took this picture with my own hands before we went in. As we went through a gate and down a dark alley, we took a left and there was this building. All the windows were blacked out. We walked in the door and this is what we saw. Children as young as 7, 8 years of age, sitting at these looms knotting these carpets. Again, to show you it is real, that is me. I was there. My assistant took this picture. They didn't know we were coming. In the past, anybody who would go in there to inspect it would give them advance notice. They had a way of getting all of these kids out the back door and scattered around in a compound so you wouldn't see all those kids working. This is on a Sunday night after dark with kids as young as 8 years of age sitting in a row. It is dark back here. But there are dozens and dozens of these kids along both sides up and down these rows working on these looms. It is dusty. All of that carpet dust comes out. That is what these kids breathe. Again, don't tell me this isn't happening. I was there. I saw it firsthand. These are two Nepalese girls I spoke to through an interpreter. They were very cautious about speaking with me. They had probably never laid eyes on an Anglo before. They were sitting there knitting carpet. I tried to determine their age. As best I could determine, they were under 12 years of age. But I really couldn't determine exactly what their age was. All I can tell you is that at about this time the owner showed up. I was told the owner wasn't there. There was a big commotion going on. The owner came in. Of course, he was extremely upset we were on his premises and ordered us to leave, which we did, but not until I had the documentation that this was happening. The next day--I don't have pictures--I went to a carpet manufacturer in the same city, Katmandu. There is a carpet manufacturer that adheres to the Rugmark label. They don't employ any child labor--none whatsoever. They certify it with a little rug mark. These rugs also go into international commerce. Here is one plant in Katmandu that does not hire child labor. They are making moneymaking carpets for international trade. Probably 5 miles away is a place such as this. There are dozens of these around making carpeting with these kids for international commerce, and they are also competing with the carpets made by a legitimate a manufacturer who does not employ child labor. This is Amir. Amir is second from the left. He is age 8. He quit school in the third grade and spends his days sitting on a concrete floor sharpening surgical scissors. These are surgical scissors and surgical knives. This is in Pakistan. Amir is 8 years old. He earns $2 a week. All day long, they breathe in this metal dust from sharpening these scissors. Mr. President, I hope neither you nor anyone else listening to my remarks has occasion to go into a surgical room. If you do, think about the scissors and the knives the surgeon will use that were made by Amir, 8 years of age. Don't tell me this doesn't have something to do with international commerce. This is 7-year-old Sonu. Sonu lives in Jullundur, India. He cuts yellow-dyed chicken feathers for badminton shuttlecocks. That is what he does 7 days a week. There is a cover story in a Hong Kong newspaper about some Chinese girls just across the border who are making toys for McDonald's. Again, it goes into international commerce. The amount of money they earn in 1 day is about enough for them to buy a Happy Meal for 1 day. I want to add this. I want to be fair to McDonald's. When McDonald's found this out, they took action to stop it. I commend McDonald's for at least taking action to stop it. My point is that without vigorous enforcement and oversight, that is what happens in international commerce. If it had not been for someone breaking into that factory and taking these pictures, MacDonald's might not have known about it either. This is a rather busy chart. This shows how child slaves--make no mistake about it, they are slaves, bought and sold. They are used in the cocoa and chocolate industry. Last year, Knight Ridder newspapers in a series of articles exposed child slavery on west African cocoa farms. This is the cocoa that young slaves harvest and produce. It goes to Europe. It goes into the Philadelphia area. Fifty percent of all the cocoa entering the United States is unloaded in Philadelphia. Chocolate is made using this Ivory Coast cocoa harvested by child slaves. Because of this, and because of what is happening globally with the use of child labor in international commerce, I am offering this amendment to make ending the worst forms of child labor a principal negotiating objective as nearly on a par as possible with the principal negotiating objective in this bill on protecting intellectual property rights. It is often said, if you can protect the CD, you ought to be able to protect the child. If you are going to protect the song, how about protecting the kid? I know Chairman Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee share my concerns about abusive child labor. There was some reference in the language in this bill, but I think we can and should do better. Before explaining my amendment in greater detail, I want to make clear what constitutes the worst forms of child labor. We are not talking about children who work part time after school or on weekends in the corner grocery store. It is not, for example, kids helping with the chores on a family farm. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth. All of us did when we were young people. We worked. That is not the issue we are addressing. This amendment is focused on the use of the worst forms of child labor in the production of tainted goods that flow in the international trading system today and which we import in the American marketplace. Let me cite a few examples of these products and where they come from, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. We import more than $250 million worth of hand-knotted oriental rugs every year from India, Nepal, and Pakistan, produced by as many as 1 million child laborers, many of whom are kidnapped and enslaved, bonded, or indentured. As I said, if you are ever wheeled into surgery, remember that many of the surgical knives and scissors are finished by thousands of child laborers in Pakistan--these pictures I just showed you. If any Member wishes, I can give you the names of the U.S. medical supply companies that freely import this surgical equipment. Fortunately, there is now a universal definition of what constitutes the worst forms of child labor. You may ask, What do you mean by the worst forms? We know. They are spelled out in ILO Convention No. 182, which was adopted unanimously in 1999, the first time ever. It was ultimately ratified at a record- setting pace by 117 trading nations, including, I am proud to say, the United States. In fact, the United States was the third country to ratify ILO Convention No. 182. It was a resolution offered by Senator Helms and myself. In November of 1999, it was adopted by the Senate on a 96-to-0 vote. The United States is now on record as ratifying and abiding by ILO Convention 182. When we talk about the worst forms of child labor, what are we talking about? We are talking about child slavery, child bondage, the use of children in pornography, much of which enters this country, trafficking in children, buying and selling of kids, the recruitment of children in the production or sale of narcotics, and hazardous work by children where they are breathing metal dust or making glass in India in very high temperatures. That is what we are talking about. That is what is in ILO Convention 182. That is the worst form of child labor. We are not talking about kids working part time or on weekends. It is slavery, it is bondage, it is pornography, and it is hazardous types of work. Combatting abusive child labor and linking respect for other internationally recognized worker rights to the conduct of international trade is not new. At various times during the 20th century, numerous international agreements and U.S. policy have explicitly recognized that fair labor standards are necessary for the working of a fair trading system. More to the point, I call to the attention of my colleagues article XX of the original GATT. Article XX was brought forward in the 1994 GATT deliberations. It was incorporated in the current operating rules of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. This article spells out 10 different exceptions whereby WTO member countries may enact national laws without being in violation of existing WTO or GATT requirements and international trade rules. This is what it says, article XX (a) and (b): Subject to the requirements that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures: (a) necessary to protect public morals; (b) necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. Article XX: to protect human health and life, protect public morals. Those are exceptions that countries may adopt and not be in violation of WTO. At this time, and in this new era of globalization, we have the wherewithal to end the use of abused child labor in the production of goods for international trade. The only questions are whether we have the political will and whether America will lead the way. More than 50 years after its adoption, article XX remains untested. There has been no trade jurisprudence to flush out its practical meaning or scope. So I ask my colleagues, what better place to start than for this Congress to require U.S. trade negotiators to make it a principal negotiating objective to secure an effective international ban on trade in goods produced by defenseless children under 18 who are trapped in the worst forms of child labor? We can do that by adopting this amendment, to make ending the use of the worst forms of child labor in international trade a principal priority for our negotiators. It is entirely in keeping with what President Bush said last year at the Western Hemisphere Trade Summit in Quebec. This is what President Bush said last year: Our commitment to open trade must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment and improving labor standards. What could be more important than protecting children? Using international trade agreements to combat abusive child labor is good international development policy. Abusive child labor perpetuates the cycle of poverty across generations. It is both a cause and an effect to the grinding poverty in today's global economy. Much of this should be self-evident. No nation has ever achieved broad-based economic prosperity on the backs of working children, and no such nation should be allowed to try according to any standard of fair international trade and competition. Ending the use of abusive child labor, especially in the conduct of international trade, is not morally disguised protectionism. In fact, public support for continued trade liberalization will be enhanced by eliminating trade in products made with the worst forms of child labor. Listen to the words of Ambassador Bill Brock, U.S. Trade Representative and Labor Secretary in the Reagan administration. This is what former Ambassador Brock said. I am not going to read the whole thing: Those countries which are flooding world markets with goods made by children . . . are doing more harm to the principle of free and fair trade than any protectionist groups I can think of. I could not have said it better. No one could say it better. What Ambassador Bill Brock said is absolutely right: Those countries flooding the world markets with goods made by these kids are doing more harm to the principle of free and fair trade than any protectionist groups of which I can think. This amendment is needed because we have this widespread use of the worst forms of child labor in products flowing throughout the international trading system. First, as reported, this bill does not include the prohibition of the worst forms of child labor in the proposed definition of core labor standards. That is why I think this amendment is so necessary. The bill, as reported, does speak to it but does not include the prohibition of the worst forms of child labor. It does not assign a high enough priority and visibility among U.S. trade policy objectives to deter the worst forms of child labor. Secondly, the bill calls for ``promoting respect for worker rights and the rights of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO'' as one of the eight overall trade negotiating objectives. That is decidedly weaker than what this amendment would do to make it a principal negotiating objective of the U.S., ``ensuring that any multilateral or bilateral trade agreement that is entered into by the U.S. includes provisions obligating all parties to such agreements to enact and enforce national laws and to meet their international legal obligations to prevent the use of the worst forms of child labor.'' That is what is in the amendment. Third, the bill before us makes intellectual property rights one of 14 principal U.S. negotiating objectives and, as such, calls for ``providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.'' That is pretty clear and specific. The amendment we have before us calls for the same clarity of purpose, resolve, and range of enforcement mechanisms with regard to preventing the use of the worst forms of child labor in international trade. Quite simply, this amendment will ensure that the President has the authority and backing of the Congress to negotiate to end the worst forms of child labor in international trade on a par, as nearly as possible, with the President's authority to negotiate and protect intellectual property rights. In conclusion, this amendment does not dictate a predetermined outcome on how best to negotiate enforceable means. It does not tie the hands of our trade negotiators in any fashion. But it does make it crystal clear that one, among several, of our 15 principal trade negotiating objectives will be the enactment and effective enforcement of national laws by other countries and compliance with their international legal obligations to eliminate the use of the worst forms of child labor in international trade. A few days ago, I met in my office with several former child laborers from around the world. They were on their way to New York City with Kailash Satyarthi, leader of the Global March Against Child Labor, and one of the great heroes in the world today for getting kids out of the worst forms of child labor. Kailash brought these kids from around the world to take them to the United Nations for the first ever General Assembly Special Session on Children. I talked to one little boy in my office who had been branded on his face and his arms because he had been drinking a little bit of leftover milk. He came all the way from New Delhi to add his voice to a growing children's chorus in New York and from around the world, pleading for us adult policymakers ``to create a world fit for children.'' So for Ashraf, a young boy who escaped enslavement and was in my office, and for tens of millions of other children still trapped in the worst forms of child labor, let's use our leverage, the power of our Government, our moral leadership, and require that U.S. negotiators do their part. They should bring back to this Congress enforceable trade agreements that outlaw and end this sordid, dirty dimension of international trade once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, my staff, the staff of Senator Baucus, the staff of Senator Grassley, along with people in the administration, have been working for the last few days to work out an agreement. We agreed to make some changes on our side, but still to keep the essence of this amendment alive, to make it one of the primary negotiating objectives-- one of the primary negotiating objectives--and that is still in the amendment. So we have modified it and, as such, we have reached an agreement with Senator Baucus and with Senator Grassley. Amendment No. 3459, As Modified So I have talked with managers of this bill on both sides, and I now ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the changes that I have sent to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I chaired a hearing on Parkinson's Disease in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. I was profoundly touched by the victims of this disease who came to testify and by the many, many victims, families and advocates who came to Washington to put a human face on this horrible disease. As a Congress, we can't take the time to listen to every story but I ask unanimous consent that one little girl's story be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 23, 2002, in SE-106 at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss disaster assistance. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2002, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Bingaman, Cochran, Dodd, Helms, Kerry, Rockefeller, Reid, Gordon Smith, and Wellstone. The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006. This was a much needed reform that is helping millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. As of today, it is estimated that 3,000 captioners will be needed to fulfill this requirement, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States only has 300 captioners. If our country expects to have media fully captioned by 2006, something must be done. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides. Though we don't necessarily think about it, on the morning of September 11, Holli Miller of Ankeny, Iowa was captioning for Fox News. She was supposed to do her three and a half hour shift ending at 7 a.m. but as we all know, tragedy struck. Despite the fact that she had already worked most of her shift and had two small children to care for, Holli Miller stayed right where she was and for nearly five more hours, she captioned. Without even the ability to take bathroom breaks, Holli Miller made sure that deaf and hard of hearing people got the same news the rest of us got on September 11. I want to say thank you to Holli Miller and all the many captioners and other people across America that made sure the country was alert and informed on that sad day. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from this legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 or 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. In addition, I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere, from the gym to the airport. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium. Although we have a few years to go until the deadline given by the 1996 Telecom Act, our Nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past five years, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased significantly, causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet the need for these skills keeps rising. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2002 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet our goal set by the 1996 Telecom Act. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and I hope they will join us in support and join us in our effort to win its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Anthony Lowe, of Washington, to be Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 10 a.m., in closed session to mark up the strategic programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 9 a.m., in closed session to mark up the seapower programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., on NASA reauthorization.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittees Emerging threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 11:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the emerging threats and capabilities programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed markup on the FY03 Intelligence Authorization bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Reforming the FBI in the 21st Century: Reorganizing and Refocusing The Mission'' on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, in Dirksen Room 106 at 2 p.m. Witness List: The Honorable Larry Thompson, Deputy attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and the Honorable Robert S. Mueller III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-366. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Guy F. Caruso to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, on this vote, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wanted to thank the legislative counsel who worked so hard on this: Gary Endicott; Darcie Chan; Janine Johnson; Heather Flory; and Tim Trushel. They were indispensable in helping us work through this bill. I thank the Congressional Research Service: Geoff Becker; Joe Richardson; and Jeff Zinn. I thank the Congressional Budget Office analysts. When we always asked them, in the middle of the night, they would come through with the information we needed. They are David Hull, Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Valeri Baxter-Wolmer, and Lanette Walker. And at the USDA Office of General Counsel, I thank Dave Grahn and Pia Ruttenburg. I will yield the floor, but someone asked me what was the best thing we had going for us when we went into conference with the House. I said: We had our secret weapon. We had the majority leader of the Senate. The majority leader is a valuable member of our Agriculture Committee. I can't think of anyone who has worked longer and harder for our farmers and ranchers in America than Tom Daschle. Since the day he first came to the House of Representatives, we have been close friends. We have worked together. He has been one of best leaders on agriculture in all these years. It is a source of pride to me to have him on the Agriculture Committee with us. I can tell you, it was a great source of pride in getting the job done and getting us to this point that Senator Daschle was there with us every step of the way, helping us out and bringing us to the point where we are. I publicly thank my good friend, my leader, Senator Daschle, for all of his help on this.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank particularly the family members of these individuals, the spouses, significant others, the children. I know they haven't seen spouses, loved ones, parents, father and mother, in this case, for some time because of the long hours we have worked. Sometimes when Members would go until 9 or 10 at night, we went home. Staff stayed until 1 or 2 in the morning to clean up the mess we made and do all the paperwork and get us ready for the next day. I particularly thank their families. I close by saying my special thanks to my ranking member and my good friend Senator Lugar from Indiana. I know we disagree on this bill, but there are a lot of things on which we do agree. There are a lot of things we worked very closely on when we developed the bill in committee. I look forward to working with him in the future. This is not the last farm bill. This is not the end of what we will do to address the needs of rural America and our people who live there. I look forward to working with Senator Lugar. As I said, we may have a disagreement, but I echo what someone said the other day: Senator Lugar has been from the beginning intellectually honest and forthright in his approach on this farm bill. No one can fault that. We just see it differently; that is all. But he has been a great friend. He has helped move the process forward. Even though he didn't agree with the bill, he wanted to make sure the process moved forward. I think that is the mark of a true Senator and a statesman--to make sure, even though you don't agree, that the process must continue forward. I thank my good friend and my ranking member Senator Lugar for his help and his support in getting us to this point where we now are approaching a final vote on the bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, many Senators have not had the time to digest the many pages of the conference report and final legislative language of the nutrition title. I would like to take this opportunity to provide some detail on the provisions so that Senators will have a full understanding of what we have achieved in their conference report. When we set out to re-authorize the food stamp program our goals were to improve benefits for the neediest families and to simplify the food stamp program, making it easier for States to administer and to remove obstacles for working poor families. We wanted to strengthen the program and ensure that eligible needy families can participate in this critical nutrition and work support program. We have taken significant steps to improve benefits for households with children by improving and reforming the standard deduction. Currently, all households, regardless of their size, receive the same $134 standard deduction from their income before food stamp benefits are calculated. This approach effectively limits benefits for larger households, which typically include children. The legislation solves this problem by making the deduction more responsive to household size. Now, all households will receive a standard deduction set at 8.31 percent of that year's poverty line. Another aspect of this change is that the standard deduction will be indexed for inflation each year. Indexing the standard deduction will help maintain the food purchasing power of food stamp benefits over time. This provision will take effect with all of the other annual adjustments in the food stamp program's benefit structure. Some States apparently are concerned that this will be a difficult deadline to meet. USDA should take a pragmatic approach toward those States that are working in good faith to implement the provision in a timely manner, but who may miss the deadline. One of the most significant benefit improvements included in the nutrition title is restoring food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants. The Senate passed food stamp restorations for legal immigrants with overwhelming support. It is gratifying to see the majority of the Senate proposal in the final package. The bill restores eligibility to three groups of legal immigrants. First, it restores eligibility to qualified low-income legal immigrant children regardless of their entry date into the United States. Second, it makes qualified legal immigrant adults who have lived in the United States for 5 or more years with that status eligible. Finally, the legislation allows legal immigrants receiving benefits under specified disability-based programs to qualify for food stamps. Children who are made eligible under this provision are exempt from sponsor deeming, although adult sponsored immigrants are still subject to sponsor deeming rules. The policy USDA implemented last year on deeming represents a reasonable and balanced approach to providing food stamps to low-income families in need, while still ensuring that sponsors remain responsible for immigrants that they bring into this country. USDA should maintain this policy. Immigrants frequently live with their sponsors. Over the years, Congress has consistently rejected proposals to require food stamp recipients to repay properly issued food stamp benefits. That principle is not incompatible with sponsor liability. Low income immigrants may be deterred from participation if they believe that their family members may be sent a bill if they participate in the food stamp program. We do not intend for low-income sponsors who are a part of the food stamp household or family unit to incur a liability as a result of their family's or household member's participation in the food stamp program. The broad restoration for adults will bring food stamp rules into conformity with Medicaid and TANF immigrant eligibility rules for recent immigrants. Now, under all three programs, an adult becomes eligible for benefits 5 years after obtaining a qualified status. The 5 year waiting period begins when the immigrant gains qualified status regardless of what type of immigrant status he or she had prior to that point. This alignment should make it much easier for immigrants to understand the immigrant eligibility rules in the three programs and for States to administer them. Since 1996, the proportion of food stamp recipients who work has increased dramatically and the proportion who receive welfare has plummeted. Food stamps is no longer a mere adjunct to cash welfare programs. It is a work support program and a nutritional safety net for a wide spectrum of low-income people. Paperwork and administrative requirements that might have been appropriate when food stamps were a supplement to welfare have become unnecessary barriers to meeting the nutritional needs of more diverse eligible low-income households. Although some States have shortened their applications, current rules require information on too many obscure types of income and resources, even though few households have these items. This approach is the result of a policy that seeks to cast a very wide net in collecting information about households' incomes and resources. A solution to this problem is to narrow the applications' scope to those relatively few types of income and resources that would make a significant difference in the food purchasing power of applicants. Sections 4102 and 4107 of the bill allow states to conform their definition of income and resources in the food stamp program to definition in their TANF and Medicaid programs. Each section lists major items that fairness requires to be counted. USDA will have the authority to add to the list of items states cannot exclude. Since we worked closely with USDA in crafting the statutory list, the Department should not have reason to exercise that authority in the absence of unforeseen circumstances. In addition, the legislation does not require states to wait for new regulations before simplifying their programs. States now have the option of semi-annual reporting in the Department's current regulations. This bill allows States to extend semi-annual reporting to the vast majority of the food stamp caseload. States will be able to conform their food stamp reporting rules more closely to those of Medicaid and other work support programs. Separate rules and requirements for each program burden both families and state administrators. Joint guidance or regulations from USDA and HHS can make a real difference. Families should be able to comply with both programs' requirements by completing a single report. An eligible family should not put its food stamps at risk by complying with Medicaid reporting requirements. The Department should ensure that this no longer happens. The same procedural protections the Department has long applied to monthly reporting are just as appropriate for any other system of periodic reporting. Just as a household that files a late or incomplete monthly report needs a second chance, so too does a family having trouble with a quarterly or monthly report. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act and rules for individuals with limited English proficiency would apply equally no matter what period is covered by the report. USDA should further reduce reporting burdens for the elderly and persons with disabilities using the broad regulatory authority it used in late 2000 to reduce burdens for many types of households. To reduce the number of reports required of households, the conference report provides states the option to freeze households' deductions between eligibility reviews with two limited exceptions. First, if the household reports that it has moved, the food stamp office will have to provide the household a shelter deduction based on its new circumstances. Second, whenever the Department's regulations require the food stamp office to act on a change in earned income, it will have to apply the 20 percent earned income deduction to the new amount. Any household that believes this freeze is causing it a hardship may reapply and have its benefits recalculated without waiting for the next scheduled review of its eligibility. States may imple- ment this change as soon as it becomes effective. Significant new regulations from USDA in this area are not expected. The conference report does not include a Senate provision that would have replaced the current food stamp re-certification process with a re-determination process. In years past, the rigidity of certification periods was a serious problem, but USDA has taken steps in recent years to introduce flexibility and allow certification periods to be extended simply and easily. The allowance of transitional food stamp benefits, both as they exist today under USDA regulations and as expanded in this legislation, further reduces the need for fixed certification periods. Families leaving welfare can face particular difficulties with the food stamp program's current procedural requirements. Recent studies have shown that as many as 60 percent of families leaving cash assistance do not continue to receive food stamps even though almost all are still eligible. To ensure a much smoother transition from cash assistance to work, this legislation provides States with a new option to provide up to 5 months of transitional food stamps to families leaving cash assistance. Since virtually all of these families are already eligible for food stamps, the goal of the program is to eliminate any unnecessary administrative hurdles that families or States might face. When a household leaves the State's cash assistance program, the state will simply subtract the cash benefit from the family's income and recalculate food stamp benefits. There will be no contact between the State and the household and no procedural requirement on the household. This transitional benefit amount will be the correct food stamp benefit for all purposes. The benefit will essentially be frozen for the next 5 months, except that States will have to update the benefit to reflect any general changes in food stamp benefit amount such as an increase in the thrifty food plan. States may also elect to adjust the transitional benefit if they become aware of changes in the household's circumstances. For example, if a mother reports the birth of a child to the Medicaid program, the State can elect to increase the food stamp allotment to reflect the new child. In addition, the household retains the right to reapply to have its food stamps recalculated based on current circumstances. This is especially important in cases where the wage-earner in the family loses a job. Families that pay or receive child support can have special difficulty under current rules. These payments may fluctuate for any number of reasons. Keeping track of them can be difficult for both the food stamp office and the household. In addition to established regulations, USDA circulated some useful guidance on this subject last year and may want to do more. Many States do not have computers in their child support enforcement agencies that can communicate effectively with the systems that calculate food stamps. The bill requires USDA to establish simplified systems for using data from child support agencies even if it is a few months older than most information used to calculate food stamp benefits. Unless a household submits more current information, the State would use what it has. This legislation only addresses families that pay child support. A State should not rely upon State data about child support a family receives unless, under the income anticipation rules, it is reasonably certain that the family will continue to receive those amounts. Although the focus of the bill is on procedural simplifications, we did simplify the program's benefit calculation rules in some respects. Simplification is not intended to be applied in ways that would reduce benefits. New rules for estimating households' utility costs in this bill will allow States to elect to allow use of a flat, standardized amount used to calculate the shelter deduction for families with utility bills other than telephone. States do not have to inquire further into the family's living arrangements. This simplification as long as USDA and states ensure that these standardized estimates keep pace with increases in utility costs. States do not have to inquire further into the family's living arrangements. This simplification will not reduce benefits as long as USDA and states ensure that these standardized estimates keep pace with increases in utility costs. The Senate bill included a simplification in the procedures states use to convert weekly and biweekly earnings into monthly income. However, the Department's current regulations already allow states to do that if they follow these same conversion procedures in TANF. Accordingly, the legislative provision was not adopted, but USDA should encourage more states to take this regulatory option. The other simplification we made in the food stamp benefit structure involves people who live in institutions and are unable to manage their own food stamps. This will primarily involve people who are recovering from substance abuse problems and some people with severe disabilities. Although these procedures can apply to homeless people or to women living in shelters for victims of domestic violence, we expect many people in those facilities will choose to retain their own food stamp benefits because of their relatively brief stays or because they need to obtain some of their meals outside the shelter. Where, however, the recipient consents or is incapable of managing his or her own affairs, this provision will allow the benefit to be calculated under a standardized formula that will not require the institution to gather a great deal of detail about the circumstances of each resident. USDA's current rules that define an institution as a facility consistently providing more than half of a recipient's meals will continue to apply and limit this provision's scope. We also included safeguards to ensure that persons leaving centers in mid-month will receive their fair share of benefits for the remainder of the month and will get help from both the center and the food stamp office to re-enter the regular food stamp program. Many States have been operating EBT for some time now and have a great deal of experience. This legislation requires USDA to issue a report on the current status of EBT. It requires USDA to provide a wide array of information on how systems are operating, including issues with contract renewals and client access. The report will include valuable information about how states ensure that claimants have full access to their food stamps within EBT systems and on how they ensure that EBT complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The Senate bill included a provision to ensure that households that have accumulated benefits in an electronic system would not have their benefits made inaccessible for some time. Elderly and disabled households who often receive very small food stamp benefits and store them, might otherwise lose food stamp benefits. The Department is already planning to implement this policy via regulation, so the bill does not include the provision. Reforms to the food stamp quality control system in the bill are based to a great extent on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The current quality control system, for measuring program performance, only focuses on payment accuracy. Under the new system, payment accuracy will not override the program's basic goal of providing food assistance to eligible families. Under current law, States with payment error rates in excess of the national average face fiscal sanctions each year. Thus, close to one- half of the States are in violation each year. The new system focuses on those states with persistent payment accuracy problems. Only those States which USDA is statistically certain have payment error rates above 105 percent of the national average will be targeted as problem States. When a State exceeds this threshold for 2 consecutive years, USDA will be required to take action and may use any combination of three specific options as its response. First, USDA may require the State to reinvest up to 50 percent of the sanction to improve administration of the program. The bill does not specify in what activities States should reinvest, although states may use reinvestment funds to improve program access. States have discretion to determine what type of reinvestment will most improve its program. Second, USDA can designate up to 50 percent of state's potential liability to be held at risk, but cannot collect sanctions during the year in which they are assessed. The State must pay at risk amounts from the previous year if the State's error rate is subject to sanction in the current year. If the State is not subject to sanction in the following year, the amount held at risk is auto- matically waived. Finally, USDA can waive any portion of the sanction amount. Sanctions that are not reinvested or held at risk must be waived. USDA should consider the causes of the State agency's problems, and whether the State's error rate is declining along with other relevant factors when determining how much of a State's sanction to waive. If a State is making progress on reducing its error rate, USDA should consider a waiver of its sanction. As under the current system, States may appeal these decisions. If a State loses an appeal, USDA may withhold funds that have not yet been reinvested pending appeal. The Department should not use this authority in a way that undermines reinvestment plans when a State raises an appeal in good faith. The Senate bill would have adjusted sanctions for States doing a particularly good job of serving low-wage working families or immigrant households. USDA assured the conferees that it would continue its current practice of adjusting sanctions to account for enrolling high or rising numbers of participants more likely to involve errors, such as working poor households. USDA should also continue to adjust for the impact of high numbers of legal immigrant households and, in the future, to adjust for other factors, as the need arises. The current system will remain in place for fiscal year 2002. USDA may use its authority to waive the fiscal year 2002 sanctions for those States that would not have faced sanctions under the new system. Similarly, it may waive sanction amounts in excess of the new sanction formula. The new system begins in fiscal year 2003. No State will be subject to paying a sanction until 2005. The administration requested this delayed implementation timetable. USDA must now ensure that this delayed effective date does not undermine the progress states are currently making toward lowering error rates. The legislation provides $48 million each year for new quality control performance bonuses to States. Bonuses will be provided to States with the best or most improved performance relating to correcting errors, reducing rates of error, and improving eligibility determinations and other indicators of effective administration determined by USDA in consultation with the States. Correcting errors is crucial. USDA should recognize and reward States that improve their staff training and establish systems that give State administrators early warning when eligibility workers encountering problems. USDA should also consult other program experts such as client advocates, research organizations and academics. The bonuses should be balanced and reflect many important aspects of State administration, in addition to payment accuracy and program integrity. Timeliness and denying benefits only to those applicant households that are truly ineligible, should be a significant portion of the bonus calculation. Regrettably, the conference agreement does not include the Senate provision to move toward the more reasonable version of the time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents that the Senate passed in 1995 and again in 1996. Congress should revisit the issue in the near future, but in the meantime, the administration should continue to do everything possible to limit harsh and inequitable effects of this provision. In addition, the bill restructures the employment and training funding to eliminate the requirement that 80 percent of employment and training funds be set-aside for individuals subject to the time limit, although it does reserve a small mount of money specifically for that population. USDA should give this group of people and the States that elect to serve them special consideration when distributing employment and training funds. States that have agreed to ensure that no one who is willing to work is denied benefits under the time limit should receive the funds to do so. In this bill, States have a greater flexibility to provide employment and training services to people that are subject to the time limit yet do not meet the definition of a work activity. Such individuals can still benefit from, for example, job search activities and training programs that are less than 20 hours per week. USDA should respect the broad authority states already have to decide how to coordinate and apply these various employment-related requirements under the act. This bill also eliminates the current $25 cap on the amount States may reimburse E&T participants for expenses other than dependent care. This cap had not kept pace with inflation and limited States' ability to provide needed work support as part of their education and training programs. USDA should continue its longstanding policy of providing States with broad flexibility in providing these funds to employment and training participants. This nutrition title is among the strongest that the Congress has ever passed. It will improve benefits, support families' efforts to move from welfare to work, and simplify program rules. The bill will improve nutrition benefits for low-income Americans and reduce hunger and poverty in our country for a number of years into the future.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 4 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to close my part of the debate on this farm bill. We will be voting very soon. I want to say a few things. This is a comprehensive bill. This isn't a bill just for commodities for one part of the country or other. This is a comprehensive bill that takes into account a lot of different factors. This is a farm bill that has taken a long time and a lot of hard work, both in our committee and in the Senate, under the leadership of, first, Senator Lugar, and under my chairmanship beginning in the middle of last year; also, on the House side, under the chairmanship of Congressman Combest, and his ranking Member, Congressman Stenholm. We have had a lot of debate on this bill in the committee and on the floor, and, quite frankly, a lot in conference also. Out of this has come, I think, a good bill, a strong bill--a bill that is good for all of America. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not perfect, at least not from my viewpoint. And I daresay, there isn't one Senator here who would think it would be perfect from his or her viewpoint. I am sure that everyone here can find one or two things they do not like in the bill. But keep in mind, it is a comprehensive bill for America and for our future. The bill comprises a number of different parts which I think enable us to turn the corner. If I were to say what was my view on this farm bill, it turns the corner from where we have been in the past. In commodities, we have strengthened income, we have provided stability and predictability. We have ended the Freedom to Farm. Freedom to Farm was built on a two-legged stool: low loan rates and AMTA payments--direct payments. Well, if you ever tried to sit on a two-legged stool, you know it is unstable, it is unpredictable, you never know which way you are going to fall. So this bill puts four legs under that stool for our farmers and our ranchers: higher loan rates, a target price, a direct payment, and conservation--four strong legs under that stool by which we support and enhance our farmers' livelihoods. So we have turned the corner. Large farms in the past got everything. Under Freedom to Farm, it was a dog-eat-dog world. And in a dog-eat-dog world, the biggest dog gets it all. We have turned that corner. Now, for example, people like Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner and Sam Donaldson will not be able to get a dime from this farm bill. I cannot tell you how many editorials I have seen lately saying the farm bill continues to give all this money to people like Ted Turner and Scottie Pippen, and people like that. Absolutely untrue. We have turned that corner. They now will not get one single dime. We have more help for our moderate and mid-sized farms, with the higher loan rates, with the conservation payments, with the target price. We have support in here for beginning farmers. We even have a specific provision in here for organic farmers, which we have never had before. We have a provision in this bill for specialty crops, a floor of $200 million a year for the purchasing of fruits and vegetables. That helps small orchards, small vegetable farmers, in every state, like in Washington, in Michigan, and in New England. This is good not only for them but for the health and welfare of America. So we have turned the corner in just focusing on the biggest farmers and in focusing only on a few crops. We now are saying to moderate and mid-sized farmers: You, too, will have support and help. We say to farmers who are growing specialty crops: You now have support and help. We say to organic farmers: You now have support and help. We say to farmers who want to practice conservation: You now have help. And especially to our smaller and mid- sized farmers. So we have turned the corner. On conservation, we have an 80-percent increase in conservation, a huge increase over 1996 Farm Bill. We have turned the corner. The Conservation Reserve Program, nearly 3 million more acres will be added; the Wetlands Reserve Program, we have more than doubled it; the Wildlife Habitat Program, a fourteen-fold increase; the EQIP program, to help our livestock farmers clean up and stop runoff into places such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River and the Missouri River and the Great Lakes and our crop producers to reduce their nutrient run-off, among many other important conservation activities, five and a half times more money. More money for EQIP than we have ever had before, going from $2 billion to $11 billion. There is a new provision for ground water protection that we have never had before; $600 million to help conserve ground and surface water. There is a brand new conservation program called the Conservation Security Program that will help all farmers, especially our moderate and mid-sized and small farmers be good conservationists, like they want to be, like many of them are already. This will help support them and encourage them to be even better conservationists in the future. We have turned the corner on conservation. This is a program that many farmers are eagerly waiting for and I strongly encourage the Secretary to expedite implementation of CSP so we no longer leave producers out of conservation programs and so we no longer continue to ignore the stewards of our nation's natural resources. On nutrition, as I mentioned, the last farm bill did not even include a nutrition title. We included it in this farm bill at a level of $6.4 billion, almost twice what the House level was. Yes, I say to my friend from Texas, you bet we restored food stamp benefits to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. The President himself wanted that. We also said that children and people with disabilities don't have to wait 1 day to get food stamps. Yes, we answered that need. We also did away with a lot of the red tape and the paperwork associated with the food stamp program. In addition, we provide 5 months of food stamps for people who are making the transition from welfare to work. On the Emergency Food Assistance Program--the TEFAP program it is called--we provide more money for commodities that are distributed in food banks and food pantries. There are 33 million Americans--13 million of whom are children--who go to bed hungry every night. This farm bill speaks to them. That is why 51 organizations, including Second Harvest, Bread for the World, the Children's Defense Fund, the Food Research Action Center, and many others--51 food groups--in America support this bill and urge its passage. Our bill sticks up for needy people. We say, they, too, are part of our great country. Someone said we are buying votes in this bill for commodity programs. How about nutrition? How about all the money we put in for nutrition, for all the poorest people in America, for legal immigrants? Many of them cannot vote. We are not buying any votes there. But we are meeting a humanitarian need and we are meeting our obligations as a decent and caring society. Rural development: We provide the funds to clear up the backlog of water and wastewater. Broadband access: This is the first time we have money in there to bring broadband access to our small towns and communities. We have a Rural Equity Capital Fund we have never had before, a provision to provide for grants and loans for value-added businesses owned by farmers around small towns and communities. We have turned the corner on rural development. Energy: This is the first time ever we have had a title in the farm bill dealing with energy, to provide grants and loans to farmers and ranchers for renewable energy--wind, solar, biomass, that type of energy--to build biofuels processing plants for soy diesel, soy lubricants, ethanol. Yes, we are providing new markets for our farmers out there, and the new market is energy--energy for our country, to make us energy independent, to provide us the kind of independence that we need in energy, based on renewable resources on our farms and ranches. It is the first time ever. We have turned the corner. On trade, we provide more money for the Market Assistance Program, to make sure we are able to sell our value-added products overseas, and we have the Foreign Market Development Program to get our bulk commodities overseas. We have provided more money for that. So we have turned the corner there. We have heard a lot of talk about competition. I will say this, we have done more in this bill on fairness and transparency than any bill since the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921--more. Farmers and consumers scored a big win, and the big meat processors suffered their biggest loss in decades when we kept the country of origin provision.

Mr. HARKIN. Under credit reform, there are essentially two components to determining the subsidy rate for any loan program. Those components are any discount from the treasury rate of borrowing and the risk related to the loan. The RUS telecommunications loan program has not suffered a loan loss. In fact, the RUS telecommunications loan program has over its life, made money for the Government. Broadband lending within the RUS parameters does not necessarily bring with it a higher risk profile. The process by which the Office of Management and Budget determines subsidy rates for Federal loan programs is sometimes viewed as a mysterious process to say the least, given the year to year swings in the subsidy rates for the same or similar programs and classes of borrowers. Given the record of the agency, however, and given the treasury rate of interest assumption of your question, $20 million a year in direct budget authority provided could generate a minimum loan level of $750 million a year.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The legislation seeks to foster significant advancement in all rural applications of broadband. In this context, technological neutrality should not be used to preclude progress in any given technology. For example, what is broadband in a fixed setting may be different than what is broadband in a mobile wireless setting. In both cases, the measure of broadband capability should be based on capability of the network, not the individual devices used to access the network. This legislation is intended to help rural citizens gain access to modern broadband information networks.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be pleased to answer the questions of the Senator from North Dakota. But first, I want to thank the Senator for your and your staff's work on this issue. Together, we've come up with a great intiative that will serve Rural America in the information age. The Senator and his bipartisan group of supporters are to be congratulated for their work on this important legislation. It will spur new investment in rural broadband.