Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my Republican colleague, Senator George Allen of Virginia, in introducing the Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act of 2002. Senators Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Schumer, Nickles, Clinton, Warner, Mikulski, Burns, and Craig are also original co- sponsors of this much-needed, bipartisan legislation. The war against terrorism must be fought and won on multiple fronts. And we cannot forget that terrorist acts are ultimately stories of human tragedy. The dedicated, professional woman from Iowa, Kathryn Koob, seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the Iranian people and the American people only to be held captive for 444 days in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from Iowa, Taleb Subh, visiting family in Kuwait, terrorized by Saddam Hussein at the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia, Charles Hegna, tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers in order ``to punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the people we know; Americans in all 50 States have suffered. What do we say to these families, the wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters? We believe that those who sponsor as well as those who commit these inhumane acts must pay a price. In 1996, the Congress passed a significant law without partisan divide, and with the support of the U.S. State Department. This law allows Americans to pursue justice in U.S. Federal courts. The idea behind this law is to make the terrorists and their sponsors pay an immediate price for attacks against Americans abroad. For example, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and their agents that we hold here in the United States could be used to compensate innocent Americans who are victimized by their attacks for their pain, suffering and losses. Make the bad guys pay. This law only applies to ``terrorist states'', currently a list of seven foreign governments officially designated as state sponsors of terrorism (i.e. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba). It is those state sponsors of international terrorism, not the American taxpayer, who must be compelled to pay these costs first and foremost. Currently, the U.S. Treasury Department lawfully controls at least $3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors of terrorism. But officials of the U.S. Treasury and State Departments oppose using these funds to compensate American victims of terrorism who have brought lawsuits in Federal courts, won their cases on the merits, and secured court-ordered judgments and compensation awards against the rogue governments that are responsible for the attacks upon them and their families. To summarize, these American victims have been encouraged to pursue justice in U.S. Federal courts, have complied with existing U.S. law, but have been denied what little justice they were encouraged to pursue. Unelected bureaucrats, instead, want American taxpayers apparently to foot the bill for what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, in the pending case involving the 53 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and held in captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice and State Department attorneys have gone into Federal court in recent months to have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto siding with the Government of Iran. This policy is wrong-headed and counterproductive for at least three reasons. First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the terrorists; this tougher policy will provide a new, powerful disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist attacks. Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and Iraq can be moderated. Third, the American wives, husbands, sons, and daughters will have a sense of justice, they will have the public condemnation by the U.S. Government and statement of guilt, but they will have also made those terrorists responsible for the attacks and their sponsors pay a price. In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this policy work. But the Bush administration hasn't registered an opinion yet on this crucial test of our nation's resolve to fight state- sponsored terrorism. That is why we are pushing bipartisan legislation to establish two new policy cornerstones in our Nation's war against terrorism. First, we seek to require that compensation be paid from the blocked and frozen assets of the state sponsors of terrorism in cases where American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts and are awarded compensation accordingly. Second, we will provide a level playing field for all American victims of state- sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress by providing equal access to our federal courts. American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks upon them. The Congress should clear the way for them to get some satisfaction of court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, deter future acts of state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2002. On December 6, 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded an earlier District Court decision that removes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard for Salmonella. Passage of this bill is vital because the Fifth Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA, Supreme Beef, seriously weakens the substantial food safety improvements adopted by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen Reduction, HACCP, rule. According the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Supreme Beef, today, USDA does not have the authority to enforce Performance Standards for reducing viral and bacterial pathogens. This decision seriously undermines the new meat and poultry inspection system. The Pathogen Performance Standard rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year. To address the threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system based on two fundamental principles. The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry must examine its plants and determine how to control contamination throughout the food production process, from the moment a product arrives at their door until the moment it leave their plant. The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for reducing levels of pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard may be shut down until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard. So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. in addition, USDA reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have fallen substantially. The Salmonella standard, therefore has been successful. The Fifth Circuit Court's decision threatens to destroy this success and set our food safety system back by years. The other major problem is that we have an industry dead set on striking down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards. Ever since the original Supreme Beef decision, I have spent many hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry products. I have previously introduced legislation to address this issue and I have worked with industry leaders attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, industry has continually back-tracked and moved the finish line. Many times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their concerns of the moment only to have them come back and say we have not gone far enough. We cannot let the intransigence of the meat and poultry industry place our children and our families at increased risk of getting ill or dying, because some in the industry want to backtrack on food safety. I plan to seek every opportunity to get the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act enacted. I think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in reducing dangerous pathogens. I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this legislation without delay. The public's confidence in our meat and poultry inspection system depends on it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2002. On December 6, 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded an earlier District Court decision that removes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard for Salmonella. Passage of this bill is vital because the Fifth Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA, Supreme Beef, seriously weakens the substantial food safety improvements adopted by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen Reduction, HACCP, rule. According the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Supreme Beef, today, USDA does not have the authority to enforce Performance Standards for reducing viral and bacterial pathogens. This decision seriously undermines the new meat and poultry inspection system. The Pathogen Performance Standard rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year. To address the threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system based on two fundamental principles. The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry must examine its plants and determine how to control contamination throughout the food production process, from the moment a product arrives at their door until the moment it leave their plant. The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for reducing levels of pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard may be shut down until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard. So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. in addition, USDA reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have fallen substantially. The Salmonella standard, therefore has been successful. The Fifth Circuit Court's decision threatens to destroy this success and set our food safety system back by years. The other major problem is that we have an industry dead set on striking down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards. Ever since the original Supreme Beef decision, I have spent many hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry products. I have previously introduced legislation to address this issue and I have worked with industry leaders attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, industry has continually back-tracked and moved the finish line. Many times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their concerns of the moment only to have them come back and say we have not gone far enough. We cannot let the intransigence of the meat and poultry industry place our children and our families at increased risk of getting ill or dying, because some in the industry want to backtrack on food safety. I plan to seek every opportunity to get the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act enacted. I think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in reducing dangerous pathogens. I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this legislation without delay. The public's confidence in our meat and poultry inspection system depends on it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, America needs a new energy policy that will increase America's energy independence and reduce the dramatic energy price spikes that hit Iowans right in the pocketbook. We need a forward looking, sustainable and environmentally friendly policy that will provide for America's national security and economic security. One of the keys to our energy future is a sustainable, environmentally friendly energy policy that includes the adoption of a nationwide renewable fuels standard. By requiring that a percentage of all the gasoline marketed in America contain renewable fuels we can greatly improve our energy security, protect the environment, and create jobs through the farm-based products used in energy production. I've worked for years in the Senate to build bipartisan consensus for the creation of a national renewable fuel standard, introducing my own legislation and cosponsored similar legislation by Senators Tim Johnson, and Chuck Hagel. This bipartisan effort paid off when we included a renewable fuels provision in the Senate energy bill recognizing the benefits of the oxygen content requirement in the reformulated gasoline program. The bipartisan renewable fuels provision will greatly increase the production of the fuels of the future, such as ethanol and biodiesel. By directing refiners and importers to increase the use of renewable fuels to 2.3 billion gallons in 2004 and 5 billion gallons in 2012 we can significantly increase the nationwide demand for ethanol, which was approximately 1.8 billion gallons in 2001. This bipartisan proposal also says that the government should lead by example and use alternative fuels in 50 percent of all Federal Government vehicles by 2003 and 75 percent by 2005. This is a common sense approach which has been proven to work in Midwestern States, like Iowa, where 100 percent of all gasoline used in State vehicles contain clean-burning, renewable ethanol. Renewable fuels already help improve our environment, provide energy security, and increase farm incomes and create jobs in rural America. Authoritative estimates indicate that a renewable fuels standard would increase demand for corn for ethanol from 650 million bushels to 2.5 billion bushels in 2016 which would increase the price of corn by an average of 28 cents per bushel and create 300,000 jobs nationwide. America's energy past has been one of fossil fuels, air pollution, and dependence on foreign oil. Our new energy policy should not repeat the mistakes of the past. It must be forward looking, it must invest in a sustainable and independent energy future and not subsidize the failed policies of the past. America's energy future can start today with a greater investment in renewable energy.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a nomination hearing on March 6, 2002, in SD-106 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the following nominations: Thomas Dorr the nominee for Under Secretary of Rural Development; Nancy Bryson, the administrations nominee to serve as general counsel for USDA; and Grace Daniel and Fred Dailey who are nominated to serve on the board of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify some issues related to my amendment that passed the Senate earlier this week regarding the establishment of a protection and advocacy system to ensure that people with disabilities have full and equal access to the election process. Among other provisions, my amendment states that protection and advocacy systems under S. 565 may not resort to litigation when representing persons with disabilities who have been denied equal access to the polling place or to the voting process. I agreed to this provision with some trepidation, since the protection and advocacy system has a long and well established authority under several federal laws to pursue litigation to enforce the rights of people with disabilities. The protection and advocacy system has proven themselves to be responsible stewards of the public trust we as members of Congress have placed in them in regard to litigation. The protection and advocacy system is known for exhausting all other remedies before resorting to litigation, and in fact less than 5 percent of all cases handled by protection and advocacy systems nationally result in litigation. The vast majority of people with disabilities helped by the protection and advocacy system have their issues resolved through alternative means of dispute resolution such as negotiation and mediation. And yet the authority to pursue litigation when necessary and when warranted is an essential component of our nation's disability rights system. If we take away the ability of people with disabilities to obtain due process through the courts, we take away the level playing field created by laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Developmental Disabilities Act, and others. Because of that, it is essential that protection and advocacy systems retain their current authority to utilize a full array of approaches, including litigation, to carry out their important work as defenders of the rights of people with disabilities. Nothing in my amendment today is intended to undermine that important authority in any other federal laws affecting the protection and advocacy system. I look forward to continuing in my role as a champion of the protection and advocacy system, and of the rights of people with disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his very kind and overly generous remarks. We have been, as he said, close friends for a quarter century now. We first came to the House together. We were sworn in on the same day. But I think the Senator is being overly kind in his comments about this Senator. As we all learn, as we go through life, the famous saying, no man is an island, around here, no man or woman gets legislation through by himself or herself. It takes a team effort and takes people working together. On all the legislation we have passed that has made lives better for people with disabilities, Senator Dodd of Connecticut has been in the forefront of the fight every single time from day one. We have served together on the Labor, Health, and Human Resources Committee all these years. He is senior to me on that committee. I have been proud to follow his lead on so many of these issues that make life better for our citizens with disabilities. I respond in kind by thanking the Senator from Connecticut. As he said, both of us, in our own individual families, have had personal experience with siblings who have had disabilities. We bring those personal experiences here. It gives us a better feel for what is happening to a lot of people around the country who want a full and fair life, want accessibility, want to be integrated in society, want education and travel, employment, and, yes, one of the most fundamental of all rights that make us uniquely American--the right of the secret ballot. The bill before us that Senators Dodd and McConnell have put together is a great bill. But like anything else, there are little parts that may need to be tweaked. This is considered one of those little things we need to do to help ensure that access from the curbside or from that parking lot to that voting machine, which they have rightly done in this bill, so there has to be at least one in every voting place. I applaud the Senator from Connecticut for taking the lead on that. But this is just something that will help ensure that we are able to have the access at the least cost, least interference, and the best method possible. Again, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue and for his friendship for a quarter of a century to me personally, but to all Americans with disabilities. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 2912. This is a very simple amendment, a very short amendment. It is one that is needed to improve full and equal access to the polls for people with disabilities. The election reform bill sponsored by my colleagues from Connecticut and Kentucky does indeed provide a good first step to equal access. It requires every polling place to have at least one fully accessible voting machine. That is a good start. What is the benefit of these voting machines if people with disabilities--say, those who are using wheelchairs--cannot get to the machines from outside or from a parking lot? We have an anomaly. We have a voting machine that is accessible and usable; but what about from the sidewalk to the voting machine, from the parking lot to the voting machine, if that is not accessible? The bill requires nothing to ensure this access. Now, the bill does provide $100 million in incentive grants. That is better than nothing. But I believe we need to do more. In each State there are nonprofit agencies called protection and advocacy agencies which have been set up through the law. They work with local communities to provide equal access for people with disabilities in public places. They have been doing this for a long time. Unfortunately, they can only do so much with Federal assistance they receive. Last year, all of the P&As--as we call protection and advocacy groups--in the entire United States received $15 million. That is for all 50 States. That means they can only focus on a few access issues. They do not have the resources to work on training or educating local election officials on polling access requirements under current law. My amendment simply authorizes $10 million a year to the protection and advocacy agencies to give additional focus to voting access for people with disabilities. A GAO report that Senator McCain and I requested found in the 2000 election more than 80 percent of the 496 polling places surveyed had 1 or more physical impediments. The GAO said 80 percent of the 496 that they surveyed had 1 or more physical impediments. Consider this: 28 States do not even have curbside voting requirements. If you live in a State that does not have a curbside voting requirement and you have a polling place that has several physical impediments to get to the polling machine, what good is it to have a polling machine that is accessible if you cannot get to it and you don't have curbside voting? Even in the States where curbside voting must be an option, the rights of people with disabilities are still compromised. Curbside voting does not allow private or independent voting, as it does for the general public. For example, a poll worker meets the voter at the car or in the parking lot. The poll worker provides the ballot to the voter, or actually fills out the ballot for the voter, and the voter must trust the poll worker to submit the ballot inside. That is an unacceptable alternative to getting around current laws that require physical disability access to the polls, unless the voter requests curbside voting. Again, we have a system we are about to vote on and pass that would deny equal access to many people in our communities to vote as we vote--in private, ensuring that your ballot is your ballot, making sure you can go in the voting booth like everyone else. We are only setting aside $10 million, a very small amount of money, to be used by the protection and advocacy groups to work with local officials to help train and educate them on how you make places accessible. Again, one might ask, why would we need someone from protection and advocacy to meet with local election officials to make sure a place is accessible when the local elected officials know how to do that? Maybe yes, maybe no. There is a lot of expertise within the protection and advocacy groups throughout the United States as to how to do things, how to make things accessible with the least interference with the general public and at the least cost to the taxpayer. I myself have seen instances in my State and others, because of my work in disability rights, where local elected officials think they have to do something that is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars, to change this and do all this modification, and the protection and advocacy people come up and say: You do not have to do all that. Maybe just for a couple of thousand dollars you can change some things. One classic case that always comes to mind, and this happened some time ago, is where a local school system decided that to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act, they had to change all the drinking fountains in all the public schools, that they would have to lower all of the drinking fountains so a kid using a wheelchair could have access to them; all the other ones were too high. This was going to cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in all the schools, to go in and do all the plumbing and lower all these drinking fountains. This created kind of a firestorm in the community. They said: My gosh, we are going to have to spend all this money to lower these drinking fountains for a few people using a wheelchair. Finally, one of the P&A groups came through and said: You do not have to do that. If you would just set a paper cup dispenser by the water fountain with a wastebasket to throw it in, someone in a wheelchair could roll up, take a paper cup, fill it with water, take a drink, and throw the paper cup away, and that would not cost you very much. That is what they did. It saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are the kinds of things the protection and advocacy groups can do. A lot of local officials might think they have to do so much. Here is an example. A local elected official says: We have to make our place accessible. And they go to a local engineering group and say: What do we have to do? The local engineering group says: Hey, this is taxpayer money; we are going to knock out this wall, put in these doors, put in this ramp, do all this; we have to shift this around and maybe take this part of the lot out. All of a sudden you are into hundreds of thousands of dollars. A protection and advocacy group, knowing the law and knowing the requirements of ADA, might come in there and say: No, you don't have to do all that. There are other ways you can meet these requirements at a much cheaper cost, and much more efficacious, not only for people with disabilities but for the general public. This is the experience we have had in the past in many places where they have had problems of accessibility. The P&As, as we call them, have just been great, working with local officials to train and educate them about how to make places accessible. That is what this amendment does. I hope the amendment will be accepted. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond a little to the arguments made by the Senator from Kentucky regarding my amendment. First, the Senator from Kentucky says the P&As can already handle cases dealing with access to places that are already within their purview to do so. I would say that is true. There is one P&A for each State and they do receive some state assistance. We gave $15 million last year for 50 States. Even with some of the small amounts they get from the State or other sources, they have very little with which to operate. The average P&A's budget is $1.2 million. Yet they have to cover the entire State in terms of working with local officials on accessibility. They have very small staffs. Their purpose is to educate, train, and advocate for compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no extra funding to work on voting access. They are already strapped. But now we are saying with this bill that we want to have voting access. Again, we have an anomaly here. We have within the bill a requirement that there be at least one voting machine that is acceptable for voting places. But there are no minimum standards for accessibility to the machine from the parking lot to the sidewalk from the outside. The bill is silent on that. It is absolutely silent. Rather than just setting a minimum standard, which I don't think we ought to be doing right now, the best thing is to give a small amount of funds--this is $10 million a year for all 50 States. An average of maybe $150,000 per P&A to have them train, educate, and work with local officials on how to make sure the voting place is accessible. Again, the Senator from Kentucky said there are a lot of groups out there that would like to do this. The protection and advocacy system is set up under law--one per State. They have been there for a long time. They have the expertise and the history. They are well integrated in every State in terms of the State structure to do this. The Senator from Kentucky went on at great length about litigation-- that he didn't want to give resources to P&As to litigate because that would use money and the States would have to come up with the money to defend it. Again, we have to look at the facts. What P&As do 99 percent of the time is basically train and educate local officials on access issues. I mentioned earlier about how we have reams and reams of examples from every State on P&As, as they are called--protection and advocacy--about how they have been able to help State governments and local governments meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act at least cost and with the least interference with the general public. This is well documented. When people call in, they provide over-the-phone advice. This is someplace where a local official can be out there, and someone could come and say: You have to do this to make something accessible. The local official does not know. They pick up the phone. They call the P&A, and they say: I have been told I have to make all of these changes to make something accessible. Do I have to do it? What do I have to do? They can get that advice. All the P&As around the country sit on local and State task forces and boards to ensure that accessibility is part of all the project planning. Remember that you have public planning for parks, recreational facilities, public buildings, courthouses, whatever. They are part of the planning process to make sure that they are accessible. They do handle individual cases. We do have data from the 50 States. The P&As are able to take about 1 of every 10 who ask for assistance. For every 10 people who call up the P&As and ask for some kind of assistance on a personal basis, they can take only 1 of them because they typically don't have the resources. They do not have the staff, and they don't have the money. I have a listing of all of the intervention strategies used in serving individuals by every State. Again, most of what they do is, as I said, education and technical assistance. On a lot of it, they negotiate and go to administrative hearings. But there is a column here on litigation. Here are the facts: The Senator from Kentucky went on and on about litigation. There were 43,092 cases that came into the P&A system last year, 2001. Out of 43,092 cases, 178 wound up in litigation. And the simple truth is, the P&As get the most bang for their buck through education and training and working with officials proactively-- not through the courts. The reason they don't litigate is that they do not have the wherewithal. I can say without any fear of contradiction that each 1 of those 178 cases was an egregious case. This is where the P&As have gone through negotiations, they have gone through mediation, they have gone through counseling, they have gone through administrative hearings, and nothing gets done. Yet, at that point in time they litigate. I don't think the Senator from Kentucky would like to take that right away from the P&As on the most egregious cases. The facts belie the fear of this burgeoning litigation. Again, just one of the things that P & A's do is handle individual cases. They only take 1 out of every 10 complaints--and then they do everything they can which is required by law--to remedy the problem. And only in those most egregious instances--3 percent of those individual cases--do they consider the courtroom as an option. So again, what my amendment will basically do is give to a nonprofit group that has a strong record in education, training and advocacy. It is a nonprofit entity. It is recognized by the States. As I said, State governments rely on them. They sit in on State boards and local boards, work with them in the planning process, and give technical assistance to help make sure we have accessibility for people with disabilities. Again, my amendment has been pending for over 2 weeks. It has been out there during the break and before the break. My amendment has been out there. I have not heard one complaint from any group or any election officials that this is a bad amendment. The disability community, I can tell you, is united behind this amendment. I think it is a modest approach. As I said, the more drastic approach would be for us to demand a minimum standard on physical accessibility to the voting place. Maybe that is what we should have done. But we decided to take the perhaps more cautious approach, one that would leave the maximum amount of flexibility for States to do what they needed to do. And the P&A system can help them do that. The funding will give the P&As the resources they need to focus on voting accessibility, which they can't do now because of their limited budgets. That is what the P&As can do. It is not a cookie-cutter approach, but to work with local officials, find the lowest cost, least interference method of making sure we have accessibility for everyone: People with disabilities and people without disabilities. As I said, they have great expertise. They have been doing this for a long time, going back to the 1970s, when they were created. Quite frankly, as the former chair of the Disabilities Subcommittee, and one who has been involved in this ever since, I keep close tabs on the P&A system. They are funded under the Appropriations Committee that I am privileged to chair. So we keep pretty good tabs on the P&A groups in the United States. With a meager amount of money, they do a great job. In fact, I hear from my secretary of state in Iowa about what a great job they do in Iowa. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Biobased Energy Incentives Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Fitzgerald and Johnson. This legislation amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 and establishes a biobased energy incentive program within the Department of Agriculture. The program provides payments to eligible biofuels producers through the Commodity Credit Corporation for using certain commodities to produce ethanol and biodiesel. All ethanol and biodiesel producers will be eligible to participate in the program. However, payment levels will be a little higher for smaller producers, giving them a better chance to compete with their larger counterparts. Payments to any one producer will be capped at 7 percent of the total funds made available for a fiscal year. This legislation comes at the right time. The Department of Agriculture has run a bioenergy program on a pilot basis for the past two years. It has shown very promising initial results. In Iowa, for instance, the program has helped bring down the price of soy diesel. Cedar Rapids now has dozens of vehicles that run on a blend of soy and regular diesel. Over the same time that this program has operated, the U.S. ethanol industry has established production records almost every month. Nearly 20 new ethanol plants began construction last year, assuring continued expansion of the industry. Yet there is no guarantee the Department will continue the program. A continuation is not in the Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2003. We can't afford to see this type of initiative flounder or, worse yet, end. Our bill, if passed, will require the Department of Agriculture to run a bioenergy program indefinitely with secure funding. The benefits of this legislation are obvious. Increased renewable fuel production lessens our dependence on foreign oil, provides environmental and public health gains, bolsters farm income, creates jobs and boosts economic growth, especially in rural areas. This also contributes to a sound homeland security strategy. The Nation must become energy independent, and domestically produced renewable fuels, along with other forms of renewable energy like wind power and biomass, play an important part in this endeavor. I want to thank Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Johnson for co- sponsoring this legislation with me. Their leadership in this area will be essential in moving the bill forward. I am hopeful we can pass this bill quickly to help secure a brighter future for our nation's farmers and fellow citizens. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Biobased Energy Incentives Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Fitzgerald and Johnson. This legislation amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 and establishes a biobased energy incentive program within the Department of Agriculture. The program provides payments to eligible biofuels producers through the Commodity Credit Corporation for using certain commodities to produce ethanol and biodiesel. All ethanol and biodiesel producers will be eligible to participate in the program. However, payment levels will be a little higher for smaller producers, giving them a better chance to compete with their larger counterparts. Payments to any one producer will be capped at 7 percent of the total funds made available for a fiscal year. This legislation comes at the right time. The Department of Agriculture has run a bioenergy program on a pilot basis for the past two years. It has shown very promising initial results. In Iowa, for instance, the program has helped bring down the price of soy diesel. Cedar Rapids now has dozens of vehicles that run on a blend of soy and regular diesel. Over the same time that this program has operated, the U.S. ethanol industry has established production records almost every month. Nearly 20 new ethanol plants began construction last year, assuring continued expansion of the industry. Yet there is no guarantee the Department will continue the program. A continuation is not in the Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2003. We can't afford to see this type of initiative flounder or, worse yet, end. Our bill, if passed, will require the Department of Agriculture to run a bioenergy program indefinitely with secure funding. The benefits of this legislation are obvious. Increased renewable fuel production lessens our dependence on foreign oil, provides environmental and public health gains, bolsters farm income, creates jobs and boosts economic growth, especially in rural areas. This also contributes to a sound homeland security strategy. The Nation must become energy independent, and domestically produced renewable fuels, along with other forms of renewable energy like wind power and biomass, play an important part in this endeavor. I want to thank Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Johnson for co- sponsoring this legislation with me. Their leadership in this area will be essential in moving the bill forward. I am hopeful we can pass this bill quickly to help secure a brighter future for our nation's farmers and fellow citizens. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would be pleased to work to address the concerns of the Senator from California regarding USDA procedures for the dairy support program.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his leadership. I ask the Senator if he agrees, and maybe he doesn't; I didn't confer with him. But we really ought to be in the position of saying that States and local voting jurisdictions in a Federal election simply can't use punchcards. I think we ought to get rid of them all. I am proud that my State of Iowa, 28 years ago, got rid of the punchcards for the very reason that too many people were making mistakes. That was 28 years ago. I am very proud of that. I think this is an old technology, fraught with all kinds of errors. I don't care what anybody says, they ought to be done away with. Again, I suppose we are not in a position to do that here, but at least we can do it in the Senator's State of Illinois.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator, I have checked again with my staff. There were no where near 30 amendments of a substantial nature that came in this morning.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if I might reclaim my time, I thank the Senator from Nevada for that. I harbor no ill will at all. I have great respect for the Senator from Arizona. He knows that. I am just trying to be as open as possible. We all know that legislative matters and requests for changes do come up throughout the process of putting a bill together. Some do come in late, but that is the right of senators to request modifications. However, nobody is trying to ram anything through that people don't know about. I will say to my friend from Arizona that this managers's amendment has been scrubbed and checked carefully, but there is another stopgap within this process just in case something gets through inadvertently that may not have been obvious or to which someone had a serious objection but had not raised it for some reason. We have to go to conference. Everything in this bill and managers' amendment is out there in that conference. Everything is out there for everybody to see. I say to my friend that there is another level which we are going through. This amendment and this bill are not the final word. That is the only point I am trying to make. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I do not agree with the characterization by the Senator from Arizona. There were not 30 amendments to the managers' amendment dropped on the Senate just this morning--that is a fact. Some additional work on the managers' amendment occurred last evening. That is the nature of putting together such a substantial bill as this legislation is. But any modifications were signed off on and accepted by the minority staff. They have been available for review. And I am told that most of them, were e-mailed out at around 6 o'clock last night.

Mr. HARKIN. In the underlying bill, the amount of money for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program funding language was scored by CBO at $375 million. It was a printing error that was made in the text of the bill, it is mistakenly listed as $375,000 in the underlying bill. Look at all the previous funding levels--they are all in the millions. The technical correction here is to make the underlying bill comport with what CBO has already scored. That is what technical corrections are for. So I say to my friend from Arizona, if this is illustrative of the problems he has with managers' amendments, I say again, that is why you have to have some trust in the ranking member and in the chairman and our respective staffs, that we are operating above board with openness but also that we are only proposing technical corrections and matters that are acceptable to both sides and not objected to by any member.

Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will be honored to work with the Senator to try to preserve the land in memory of John Ogonowski who was a proud farmer and a brave man. The land in Dracut, MA would stand as a fitting memorial to him. I will work, as the bill progresses, to encourage the use of Farmland Protection Program funds for this important cause.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The purpose of this provision is to support the development of new and innovative solutions to the Chesapeake Bay's nutrient over-enrichment problem. It provides $70 million for States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to test new practices that could provide major reductions in nutrient pollution. It will clearly require an underlying risk management instrument and we would expect the Risk Management Agency to make its programs available to implement the yield insurance aspect of this provision. I will be happy to work with the Senator from Maryland in Conference to ensure that the mechanisms to carry out this provision are created or made available.

Mr. HARKIN. I also agree with Senator Roberts and Senator Lugar and thank them for working with me on the important work of expanding and enhancing conservation technical assistance. I am a strong supporter of the work done by private third parties including the Certified Crop Advisors and the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants. Our bill will allow them to prosper while enhancing technical assistance nation-wide.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2851, As Modified