Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator for working out this agreement and for getting us to cloture on this bill so we can proceed to the farm bill. As my good friend from Nevada knows, people in rural America need this bill. They need it now. The Presiding Officer also knows that his farmers in Georgia, and especially farmers around the South, are going to have to go to their banks pretty soon after the first of the year to get loans ready for planting their crops. Their bank is going to say: What are you looking at? What are you going to have next year? They will not know. Many farmers will be right behind them in about February and March. They will be going to their banks. That is why it is so important to get this farm bill finished. As I said earlier today, and I say to my good friend from Nevada, right now we are facing over 54 percent less net farm income today than we had in 1995. We can't afford to wait any longer. We have a good bill. It is a balanced bill. We have worked out all of our agreements. This is a good bill for all Americans. It is a good bill for farmers all over this country. It is a good bill for people who live in our small towns and communities. I want to personally thank my good friend from Nevada, the assistant majority leader, for all of his help in getting this bill to the floor and for making sure we get this bill finished before we go home for Christmas. We are going to do that. We are going to finish this bill. We are going to have it out of here, and we are going to let the farmers of America know what they can count on for next year. I thank my friend.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. I have to say to my friend from Minnesota, I do not agree perhaps with every provision in this bill either. This is a balanced bill. We have to balance a lot of different interests in this bill. I thank my friend from Minnesota for his service on the Agriculture Committee. Minnesota is very lucky to have both Senators on the Agriculture Committee. We appreciate that. I point out to my friend from Minnesota, the factory study showed there would be an increased average of $3.2 billion annually.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the conference report indicates that $5 million is provided for bus replacement in Iowa. But, it is my understanding that the intent was to allow these funds which have been allocated in a collaborative process involving the Iowa DOT and the local transit authorities to be used for bus replacement, bus expansion and for facility and equipment costs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in May 1995, Larry Wayne Harris of Ohio ordered three vials of the bacterium that causes bubonic plague to be FedEx'ed from a company in Rockville, MD. At the time, all he needed was a credit card and letterhead. He invented both the letterhead and the lab he claimed to be from. In fact he was a member of a white supremacist group who would later tell of plans to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans with the plague. But when he was arrested with the vials, he was only charged with mail fraud for misrepresenting himself. No Federal license, registration, or even notification was required to obtain, own, or work with the plague. Partly as a result of this incident, Congress in 1996 passed provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to close the specific loophole. This bill required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate transfer of a select list of biological agents. But it did not regulate possession or use of the agents. The subsequent regulations incorporated safety standards for labs receiving these agents, but set virtually no security standards to make sure these agents don't end in the wrong hands. They carved out broad exemptions, including all certified clinical laboratories. And they included little means of enforcement. I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that we still have no idea who has anthrax, plague, or other biological agents in their freezer. Labs have had to register only if they have sent or received one of the agents since 1996. We know the recent attacks with anthrax used the so-called ``Ames'' strain of anthrax, which was identified at Iowa State University some decades ago, but we don't know how many labs in the United States have samples of this strain today. If we had that information before the next attack, especially if a less common agent or strain were used, it could be the starting point for the next investigation. We can and we must do better. We have long had relatively tight controls on materials that can be used in nuclear weapons. You must have a license from the NRC or an agreement state to possess these nuclear materials. There are strict safety and security requirements on the licensees, and a small army of inspectors to make sure they comply. Licensees must report all shipments and receipts, and report any losses from their inventory of a gram or more of the most dangerous materials. Bioweapons have been called ``the poor man's nuclear bomb'' because they could cause similar devastation, but are easier and cheaper to obtain. It's time we place reasonable controls on biological agents too. That is why I am introducing the Bioweapons Control and Tracking Act of 2001. This bill would for the first time impose five important controls on dangerous biological agents and toxins to reduce the risk of an accident or terrorist attack. First, the bill would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate the possession and use of select biological agents as well as their transfer. Second, the regulations would require registration with the Department for possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins. The registration would include known characterization of the agents, such as the strains, in order to facilitate their traceability. The Department would be required to maintain a database of locations and characterizations of the agents using the registration information. Third, the regulations would also have to include safeguards and security standards, as well as safety standards. Labs would be required to restrict access to the agents to people who need to handle them. And a process would be set up to screen people who do have access to the agents. Fourth, the bill requires that any exemptions from these regulations be consistent with public health and safety. Any exemptions from registration requirements would have to still allow a complete database of agents of concern, but exemptions could be allowed either for a lab that only temporarily possesses the agent or for samples that could not be useful for making a weapon. These exemptions are intended to avoid an unnecessary burden on thousands of clinical labs that receive diagnostic samples for testing and, if the test is positive for a select agent, quickly pass the sample on to a government lab or destroy it. Fifth, the bill includes strong enforcement measures. The bill specifically authorizes inspections to ensure compliance. To give teeth to the enforcement, it enacts a civil penalty for violating the regulations of up to $250,000 for an individual of $500,000 for a group. And it enacts a criminal penalty up to 5 years in prison for possession or transfer of select agents by someone who is not registered, and also for transfer to a person who is not registered. In addition, the bill exempts information about specific labs from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to prevent one-stop- shopping for information by would-be bioterrorists. It requires biennial review of the list of biological agents and toxins of concern. And it codifies the law in Public Health Service Act, maintains current regulations until the Secretary issues new ones, and sets a deadline for the registration and associated penalties. I have been working with several of my colleagues on a $4 billion package to strengthen our response to a possible bioterrorism attack, so that we can stop a terrible attack from becoming a national or world calamity. We need these funds to strengthen the public health infrastructure, monitor food safety, and build our capacity for vaccinations. But for just a few millions dollars we may be able to prevent an attack, to stop bioterrorists before they even get hold of the necessary agents. We must no delay.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment with the conference committee on the FY 2002 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill for eliminating the provision that would allow World War II POWs, who served as slave laborers in Japan, to have their day in court. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Smith of New Hampshire and myself, would have prohibited the U.S. State Department and the Department of Justice from blocking attempts by American veterans to obtain compensation in court from Japanese companies who used the POWs for slave labor during WWII. Some 30,000 Americans were taken prisoner in the Philippines in the months following Pearl Harbor and forced to perform as slave laborers for Japanese companies. For more than 3 years, our POWs endured horrific conditions and received little or no compensation. It is wrong and unfair that the U.S. Government is using taxpayer dollars to fight against these men and women who served and suffered for us during WWII, and deny them the compensation they deserve. Some 60 families and POW survivors in Iowa are affected. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if it was appropriate for the committee to cut out this provision, considering both the House and Senate voted to include it in the bill?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in May 1995, Larry Wayne Harris of Ohio ordered three vials of the bacterium that causes bubonic plague to be FedEx'ed from a company in Rockville, MD. At the time, all he needed was a credit card and letterhead. He invented both the letterhead and the lab he claimed to be from. In fact he was a member of a white supremacist group who would later tell of plans to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans with the plague. But when he was arrested with the vials, he was only charged with mail fraud for misrepresenting himself. No Federal license, registration, or even notification was required to obtain, own, or work with the plague. Partly as a result of this incident, Congress in 1996 passed provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to close the specific loophole. This bill required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate transfer of a select list of biological agents. But it did not regulate possession or use of the agents. The subsequent regulations incorporated safety standards for labs receiving these agents, but set virtually no security standards to make sure these agents don't end in the wrong hands. They carved out broad exemptions, including all certified clinical laboratories. And they included little means of enforcement. I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that we still have no idea who has anthrax, plague, or other biological agents in their freezer. Labs have had to register only if they have sent or received one of the agents since 1996. We know the recent attacks with anthrax used the so-called ``Ames'' strain of anthrax, which was identified at Iowa State University some decades ago, but we don't know how many labs in the United States have samples of this strain today. If we had that information before the next attack, especially if a less common agent or strain were used, it could be the starting point for the next investigation. We can and we must do better. We have long had relatively tight controls on materials that can be used in nuclear weapons. You must have a license from the NRC or an agreement state to possess these nuclear materials. There are strict safety and security requirements on the licensees, and a small army of inspectors to make sure they comply. Licensees must report all shipments and receipts, and report any losses from their inventory of a gram or more of the most dangerous materials. Bioweapons have been called ``the poor man's nuclear bomb'' because they could cause similar devastation, but are easier and cheaper to obtain. It's time we place reasonable controls on biological agents too. That is why I am introducing the Bioweapons Control and Tracking Act of 2001. This bill would for the first time impose five important controls on dangerous biological agents and toxins to reduce the risk of an accident or terrorist attack. First, the bill would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate the possession and use of select biological agents as well as their transfer. Second, the regulations would require registration with the Department for possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins. The registration would include known characterization of the agents, such as the strains, in order to facilitate their traceability. The Department would be required to maintain a database of locations and characterizations of the agents using the registration information. Third, the regulations would also have to include safeguards and security standards, as well as safety standards. Labs would be required to restrict access to the agents to people who need to handle them. And a process would be set up to screen people who do have access to the agents. Fourth, the bill requires that any exemptions from these regulations be consistent with public health and safety. Any exemptions from registration requirements would have to still allow a complete database of agents of concern, but exemptions could be allowed either for a lab that only temporarily possesses the agent or for samples that could not be useful for making a weapon. These exemptions are intended to avoid an unnecessary burden on thousands of clinical labs that receive diagnostic samples for testing and, if the test is positive for a select agent, quickly pass the sample on to a government lab or destroy it. Fifth, the bill includes strong enforcement measures. The bill specifically authorizes inspections to ensure compliance. To give teeth to the enforcement, it enacts a civil penalty for violating the regulations of up to $250,000 for an individual of $500,000 for a group. And it enacts a criminal penalty up to 5 years in prison for possession or transfer of select agents by someone who is not registered, and also for transfer to a person who is not registered. In addition, the bill exempts information about specific labs from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to prevent one-stop- shopping for information by would-be bioterrorists. It requires biennial review of the list of biological agents and toxins of concern. And it codifies the law in Public Health Service Act, maintains current regulations until the Secretary issues new ones, and sets a deadline for the registration and associated penalties. I have been working with several of my colleagues on a $4 billion package to strengthen our response to a possible bioterrorism attack, so that we can stop a terrible attack from becoming a national or world calamity. We need these funds to strengthen the public health infrastructure, monitor food safety, and build our capacity for vaccinations. But for just a few millions dollars we may be able to prevent an attack, to stop bioterrorists before they even get hold of the necessary agents. We must no delay.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was hoping to make a statement yesterday on this important subject, but I was tied up chairing the Agriculture Committee in consideration of our new farm bill. I would like to speak briefly on the subject of bioterrorism and the economic stimulus/ homeland security proposal considered by the Senate. The defeat of this legislation on a budget point of order was especially disappointing to me because it included a crucial $4 billion initiative to combat bioterrorism. Senator Specter and I worked closely with Senator Byrd to develop this funding proposal, which is a comprehensive plan to better protect Americans from anthrax, smallpox, and other bioterrorism threats. I have the privilege to chair the appropriations subcommittee which funds our health programs. Our subcommittee has for the past several years provided increased funding to combat bioterrorism. We have made real progress as a result. However, much more remains to be done. To determine what additional steps are necessary, our subcommittee has held three hearings during the past 2 months. We heard from our top Federal officials, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and head of FBI bioterrorism efforts. We also heard from distinguished State and local officials and top scientists from the public and private sectors. Their testimony made clear that we are not adequately prepared for this threat. We do not have enough vaccines to respond to an attack. Our public health system has been allowed to decay, and needs more help to detect an outbreak quickly, to treat a large number of infectious patients, and to vaccinate large parts of the country. As I said before, to put the state of our public health system into military terms, our troops are ill-trained, our radar is out of date, and we are short on ammunition. The plan we developed and which was included in the stimulus package is a thoughtful, bipartisan approach. It closely follows the 7 point plan I outlined last month. It provides more than twice the resources of the President's to bolster our Nation's defenses against a bioterrorist attack. In contrast to the President's plan, our proposal prioritizes funding to ``first responders'' at the State and local level. We have put the bulk of the funding, $1.3 billion, into improving our public health departments, beefing up local lab capacity and expanding the Health Alert Network. We desperately need to make these investments if we want to quickly identify, track and contain a bioterrorist attack should we ever be confronted with one. The President's plan neglects this vital piece of our response system. Our proposal also includes funding for the production of enough smallpox vaccine for every American should that ever be necessary. As we have seen in recent press reports, the administration's request is too low to produce enough smallpox vaccine for all Americans. We also allocate $116 million for research on new vaccines. Earlier this month my subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Fauci at NIH about the promising future of antivirals against smallpox. The administration's plan devotes no money to developing these new drugs. Our plan also provides more money than the President to bolster the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We need to upgrade their overburdened lab capacity and their disease surveillance systems. It also includes $650 million to improve safety and to safeguard our animal disease labs. I would like to thank Chairman Byrd for the opportunity to work with him on this important funding package. Our Nation's public health system is now the front lines in our war against terrorism; it should be prepared accordingly. I believe that we cannot leave this year without addressing the bioterrorism threat. Whether our package is included in the stimulus plan or another appropriations bill, we must get it done.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since September 11 we have all seen the generous spirit of volunteerism in our communities. Americans have given blood, donated to soup kitchens and clothing drives, all in record numbers. Although this tragedy has heightened the levels of giving, Americans were helping each other through the tough times long before September 11. I rise today to recognize one type of program that is helping to feed families caught up in the economic downturn. Take Tim Powers. Tim lives in Lisbon, IA. During the week, he works hard at Whitetails Unlimited. but on the weekends, Tim runs a game donation program. First, Tim negotiates with local butchers for reduced rates on the meat processing. Then, he reaches out to local hunting groups and lets them know they can donate their extra game to Iowa's soup kitchens. It is a great way to help those in need, it's all volunteer, and it makes sense. Similar programs have popped up across America, like Hunters for the Hungry, Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, and Sportsmen Against Hunger. Tim Powers and these organizations remind us all that hunting isn't simply a sport. It takes me back to my childhood in Cumming, IA. I was one of six kids and my father was a coal miner, so there were some hard times. Often, hunting helped to decide how well my family would eat. Believe me, that will motivate you to become a good shot. And we hunted just about anything that moved, not just deer but ducks, pheasants, and rabbits. But when we did have more than enough to feed the family, we shared it with the neighbors. It was the right thing to do. And today, Tim Powers and others are keeping that type of community spirit alive. These efforts are desperately needed. Buying meat is expensive and food banks are already stretched too thin. In 1997 alone, more than 26 million Americans sought emergency food assistance. And the Department of Agriculture reports that during between 1996 and 1998 approximately 10 million U.S. households did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Game donation programs can make a difference in the fight against hunger. One of the only problems, however, is the cost of the meat processing. Tim Powers convinced his employer, Whitetails Unlimited, that this program needs their support. Once a year they sponsor a dinner to fundraise for him, last year he raised enough money to process about 50 deer. That is a miracle for the soup kitchens in Linn County and it can happen in other places as well. There are thousands of hunters who would like to do so much more, but the funds for processing always fall short. Time and again, hunters have shown that we enjoy the activity and we're happy to go out of our way if that activity also serves to provide meat for those who are less fortunate. The only catch is the cost of processing. I hear it again and again, local programs spring up but can't raise enough funds to sustain the cost of processing. With game donation programs in a community everybody wins. The meat goes from hunters in the area to needy families within the State, there is nothing more basic than a community taking care of its own. We need to do whatever we can to help sustain these local programs. That is why I am introducing the Hunters Help the Hungry Act. This legislation would authorize states to use administrative funds from the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, to pay for the processing costs of donated wild game. TEFAP is a USDA food distribution program through which commodity foods are made available to the States. Food is then provided to food banks, soup kitchens, and food pantries for distribution to the public. In addition, my legislation would increase the authorization of TEFAP administrative funds from $50 million to $70 million. This increase is intended to cover the potential cost of game donation programs in every State, however, the legislation gives States the flexibility to use those funds for their current TEFAP programs, if they so choose. I want to stress this point: States would not be required to use any of the additional funds for the hunting-donation programs. My bill would simply provide them with the option and the flexibility to use a portion of their TEFAP administrative funds to process donated game. The remainder of the funds would cover traditionally allowable expenses like transportation and storage costs, and gleaning and other activities. In addition, the USDA Secretary would have the ability to place a cap on the percentage of administrative funds that could be used to process game meat. As always, the TEFAP program will continue to be primarily focused on commodities. My legislation would simply give States the flexibility to support local game donation programs as a part of their anti-hunger efforts. This legislation is rooted in basic common sense and traditional American values, values that America's hunters understand. Too often our hunters are only mentioned on the Senate floor when it comes time to debate a crime bill. Instead, my legislation thanks America's hunters and supports the good they do in our communities. I think it just makes sense, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since September 11 we have all seen the generous spirit of volunteerism in our communities. Americans have given blood, donated to soup kitchens and clothing drives, all in record numbers. Although this tragedy has heightened the levels of giving, Americans were helping each other through the tough times long before September 11. I rise today to recognize one type of program that is helping to feed families caught up in the economic downturn. Take Tim Powers. Tim lives in Lisbon, IA. During the week, he works hard at Whitetails Unlimited. but on the weekends, Tim runs a game donation program. First, Tim negotiates with local butchers for reduced rates on the meat processing. Then, he reaches out to local hunting groups and lets them know they can donate their extra game to Iowa's soup kitchens. It is a great way to help those in need, it's all volunteer, and it makes sense. Similar programs have popped up across America, like Hunters for the Hungry, Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, and Sportsmen Against Hunger. Tim Powers and these organizations remind us all that hunting isn't simply a sport. It takes me back to my childhood in Cumming, IA. I was one of six kids and my father was a coal miner, so there were some hard times. Often, hunting helped to decide how well my family would eat. Believe me, that will motivate you to become a good shot. And we hunted just about anything that moved, not just deer but ducks, pheasants, and rabbits. But when we did have more than enough to feed the family, we shared it with the neighbors. It was the right thing to do. And today, Tim Powers and others are keeping that type of community spirit alive. These efforts are desperately needed. Buying meat is expensive and food banks are already stretched too thin. In 1997 alone, more than 26 million Americans sought emergency food assistance. And the Department of Agriculture reports that during between 1996 and 1998 approximately 10 million U.S. households did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Game donation programs can make a difference in the fight against hunger. One of the only problems, however, is the cost of the meat processing. Tim Powers convinced his employer, Whitetails Unlimited, that this program needs their support. Once a year they sponsor a dinner to fundraise for him, last year he raised enough money to process about 50 deer. That is a miracle for the soup kitchens in Linn County and it can happen in other places as well. There are thousands of hunters who would like to do so much more, but the funds for processing always fall short. Time and again, hunters have shown that we enjoy the activity and we're happy to go out of our way if that activity also serves to provide meat for those who are less fortunate. The only catch is the cost of processing. I hear it again and again, local programs spring up but can't raise enough funds to sustain the cost of processing. With game donation programs in a community everybody wins. The meat goes from hunters in the area to needy families within the State, there is nothing more basic than a community taking care of its own. We need to do whatever we can to help sustain these local programs. That is why I am introducing the Hunters Help the Hungry Act. This legislation would authorize states to use administrative funds from the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, to pay for the processing costs of donated wild game. TEFAP is a USDA food distribution program through which commodity foods are made available to the States. Food is then provided to food banks, soup kitchens, and food pantries for distribution to the public. In addition, my legislation would increase the authorization of TEFAP administrative funds from $50 million to $70 million. This increase is intended to cover the potential cost of game donation programs in every State, however, the legislation gives States the flexibility to use those funds for their current TEFAP programs, if they so choose. I want to stress this point: States would not be required to use any of the additional funds for the hunting-donation programs. My bill would simply provide them with the option and the flexibility to use a portion of their TEFAP administrative funds to process donated game. The remainder of the funds would cover traditionally allowable expenses like transportation and storage costs, and gleaning and other activities. In addition, the USDA Secretary would have the ability to place a cap on the percentage of administrative funds that could be used to process game meat. As always, the TEFAP program will continue to be primarily focused on commodities. My legislation would simply give States the flexibility to support local game donation programs as a part of their anti-hunger efforts. This legislation is rooted in basic common sense and traditional American values, values that America's hunters understand. Too often our hunters are only mentioned on the Senate floor when it comes time to debate a crime bill. Instead, my legislation thanks America's hunters and supports the good they do in our communities. I think it just makes sense, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on November 14, 2001, in SR-328A at 10 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting will be to discuss the new Federal farm bill. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on November 15, 2001, in SR-328A at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting will be to discuss the new Federal farm bill. committee on rules and administration

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on November 13, 2001, in SR-328A at 3 p.m. The purpose of this business meeting will be to discuss the new Federal farm bill. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The Compassion Capital Fund will provide grants to public/private partnerships to help charitable organizations develop ``best practices'' as a social service agency. The goal of grantees of the Compassion Capital Fund will be to improve the effectiveness of social programs and community initiatives around the Nation. The Senate has not yet debated the President's Faith Based Initiative, and the Senator is correct that this fund is only for the development of model best practices.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I agree. We need to continue this program so that the well-established network of local housing organizations can continue to provide these needed services. That is why our subcommittee provided an additional $1,000,000 specifically for housing priorities.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. The legislation is intended to provide funds to the network of housing providers in the migrant community and not to be used for discretionary purposes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to respond in kind to my good friend and ranking member, Senator Specter, and thank him and thank all of his staff for a very great working relationship that we have had over many years, especially this year. We have completed our bill in pretty good time. Now we have to go to conference. I am convinced we can have a decent conference and get this bill back, as Senator Specter said, so we will have it done before we go home for Thanksgiving. So I again thank Senator Specter and his staff for a great working relationship. I especially thank all of the staff: Bettilou Taylor, Mary Dietrich, Sudip Parick, and Emma Ashburn. I also thank Ellen Murray, Jim Sourwine, Erik Fatemi, Mark Laisch, Adam Gluck, Adrienne Hallett, Lisa Bernhardt, and Carol Geagley. A lot of them put in a lot of hours early this year putting this bill together. We have a great bill. It meets the needs of Americans and labor, health and human services, education, and biomedical research. We have met our obligations. This is the bill that helps lift up all Americans, helps address the needs of our human infrastructure in this country, and I believe we have met that obligation to the people of this country in this bill. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on November 6, 7, and 8, 2001, in SR-328A at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of these business meetings will be to continue discussion on the next Federal farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the Agriculture, Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. The legislation is a solid starting point for the next farm bill. This bill represents a comprehensive, balanced approached that protects farm income, promotes conservation, expands production of farm-based renewable energy and creates new economic opportunities in rural communities. The bill is the right approach to farm policy in the 21st Century because it builds on successful core farm programs and charts a new, conservation-oriented agriculture policy for the future. My legislation uses a four-pronged approach to make good on our commitments to American farmers and rural communities. These four components--promoting conservation, protecting and boosting farm income, expanding jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities and increasing renewable energy production--provide the solid foundation we need to help ensure our farm families and rural areas prosper. First, conservation is a cornerstone of the bill, including the creation of the Conservation Security Act, (CSA). This program provides flexible incentives for farmers to engage in new conservation practices on working agriculture land and rewards farmers who already employ them. In addition to CSA, the bill increases acreage for the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program. It also increases the funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program as well as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. The bill also expands the farm land protection program, enacts a new grassland reserve program and permanently authorizes the Resource Conservation and Development program. While rewarding farmers for conservation practices that benefit all of society is an important way to meet our commitment to farmers, providing solid income protection is equally important. The bill will improve farm income by increasing loan rates for most commodities, setting a floor on those rates, continuing fixed direct payments and creating a new counter-cyclical income protection system. As all of my colleagues are aware, the farm bill must address the needs of others in addition to farmers and ranchers. This legislation will improve the quality of life for all of America's rural communities by creating jobs and economic growth in rural areas. The Rural Development title of this bill provides grants and loan programs to help create and expand businesses to provide jobs and assists communities by helping improve their community facilities. The title also expands grants for farmer-based groups, to help them add value to their production, helping to boost farm income and create jobs, it provides funding to expand broadband access for rural Americans, and provides grants to improve firefighter and first responder training. The fourth prong of the my approach is increasing renewable energy production. This proposal provides a full range of initiatives designed to help and encourage farmers and ranchers to develop renewable energy projects including wind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources. These projects will help boost farm and rural incomes, improve air quality and promote the nation's energy security. While the bill emphasizes a four-pronged approach, it is comprehensive in nature. The bill also includes important titles on nutrition, research, forestry, credit, competition, and trade that when taken together form a proposal that moves farm policy in the right direction in the 21st century. I hope the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation. I will continue to work with members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry in an open process to help meet our commitments to farm families and all members of rural communities. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the Agriculture, Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. The legislation is a solid starting point for the next farm bill. This bill represents a comprehensive, balanced approached that protects farm income, promotes conservation, expands production of farm-based renewable energy and creates new economic opportunities in rural communities. The bill is the right approach to farm policy in the 21st Century because it builds on successful core farm programs and charts a new, conservation-oriented agriculture policy for the future. My legislation uses a four-pronged approach to make good on our commitments to American farmers and rural communities. These four components--promoting conservation, protecting and boosting farm income, expanding jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities and increasing renewable energy production--provide the solid foundation we need to help ensure our farm families and rural areas prosper. First, conservation is a cornerstone of the bill, including the creation of the Conservation Security Act, (CSA). This program provides flexible incentives for farmers to engage in new conservation practices on working agriculture land and rewards farmers who already employ them. In addition to CSA, the bill increases acreage for the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program. It also increases the funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program as well as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. The bill also expands the farm land protection program, enacts a new grassland reserve program and permanently authorizes the Resource Conservation and Development program. While rewarding farmers for conservation practices that benefit all of society is an important way to meet our commitment to farmers, providing solid income protection is equally important. The bill will improve farm income by increasing loan rates for most commodities, setting a floor on those rates, continuing fixed direct payments and creating a new counter-cyclical income protection system. As all of my colleagues are aware, the farm bill must address the needs of others in addition to farmers and ranchers. This legislation will improve the quality of life for all of America's rural communities by creating jobs and economic growth in rural areas. The Rural Development title of this bill provides grants and loan programs to help create and expand businesses to provide jobs and assists communities by helping improve their community facilities. The title also expands grants for farmer-based groups, to help them add value to their production, helping to boost farm income and create jobs, it provides funding to expand broadband access for rural Americans, and provides grants to improve firefighter and first responder training. The fourth prong of the my approach is increasing renewable energy production. This proposal provides a full range of initiatives designed to help and encourage farmers and ranchers to develop renewable energy projects including wind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources. These projects will help boost farm and rural incomes, improve air quality and promote the nation's energy security. While the bill emphasizes a four-pronged approach, it is comprehensive in nature. The bill also includes important titles on nutrition, research, forestry, credit, competition, and trade that when taken together form a proposal that moves farm policy in the right direction in the 21st century. I hope the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation. I will continue to work with members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry in an open process to help meet our commitments to farm families and all members of rural communities. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are again. Senator Gregg, my friend from New Hampshire, is trying to say we have no obligation to help our local schools meet safety and fire codes and to renovate and rebuild our schools. I find it kind of an odd argument to say we have no responsibility, to say what he said earlier, that this is a State and local responsibility. After all, we use Federal moneys for rural water systems in this country. Should that be a State and local responsibility? His State gets some of that. There are waste water programs, bridges, highways, all kinds of things that the Federal Government is involved in in terms of construction. As we look around the country, we see our schools are falling down. The average age is 42 years old. Fourteen million kids attend school in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. So, quite frankly, there is a crying need out there for school construction. The American Society of Civil Engineers, in their report card on America's infrastructure, listed schools as the worst. They listed bridges and roads and highways and sewage disposal systems and airports, but the one that got the lowest grade was our public schools in America. My friend, with his amendment, basically is going to take the money and put it into title I. So I think what he is trying to do is put all the money in title I to send poor kids to poor schools. I am not saying we should not be doing more for title I. That is why I am going to be supporting the Cochran-Landrieu amendment, which I think is a better formula for title I. But I find it odd that the Senator from New Hampshire said we don't need to fix up these schools; we just need to put more funds in for these poor kids. And they will go to schools that are unsafe, insecure, with ceilings that are cracked and with water leaking in. They do not meet fire and water safety codes. They are not wired for the Internet. That is all right; we will send them there anyway. I find that an odd argument. I believe this is, indeed, a Federal responsibility. The way we have constructed this, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is that the money goes to the States. Then the States decide how to allocate this money out to local school districts. So we are not saying exactly how it is spent. This is sort of a State grant. I think my friend from New Hampshire has been a big supporter of block grants in the past. This basically is what it is. This goes out to the States and lets the States decide where it goes. Quite frankly, I have a chart in the Chamber which shows how much money goes out to the different States and where this money goes. The fact is, we have already seen that in the last year we put in $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. Forty-one States have already asked for and received their grants. That indicates to me there is a real need out there. If there was not a need out there, the States would not have asked for this money. Thirdly, this money is leveraged greatly. From the experience we had in my own State of Iowa, $28 million over 3 years went out for school construction and renovation. That $28 million was leveraged by State and local governments to the tune of $311 million, over a 10-to-1 leverage. It seems to me any time we can spend a taxpayer's dollar and we can get a 10-to-1 leverage in our local communities and States and we can do something of lasting value, which is to repair schools and build new schools so that our kids have the latest technologies, that is a pretty good investment of taxpayers' money. That is exactly what is happening. They are leveraging this money in a big way. Here is a chart; it is kind of busy. I will hold it up. This indicates all of the renovation funding that went out this last year for different States. I see that some of the States received more than others based upon population and a few other factors. This would be the kind of money that would be lost for school construction if, in fact, the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire prevailed. Lastly, everyone is talking about a stimulus package. We have stimulated the economy. This is what Senator Landrieu was discussing. We want to put people to work around this country. What job needs to be done more than repairing and modernizing our schools? We get a lot of bang for this buck. We get economic stimulus. We will put people to work immediately. These jobs are ready to go. There are schools all over this country that already have their plans in place, that have requests in for modernizing, for fixing up their ceilings, meeting fire and safety codes. This is something we can do right away. It stimulates the economy. It puts people to work. We get better schools. We leverage the money all over the country. I don't see why we would want to pull the rug out from underneath this right now. This money goes to the States and from the States to the local school districts. I believe this is an important element for us in the Federal Government. People say we haven't done it before, that this is something new. Is that the reason we are here? Just to continue to plow the same old ground over and over again? I keep asking, where in the Constitution of the United States does it say elementary and secondary education is to be funded only by property taxes? It is nowhere in the Constitution. That is just the way it sprung up because in the early days of our country we wanted to have a free public education for everyone--for white males at that time but for everyone later on. There was no taxing base. All they had was property taxes and a few excise and tariff taxes. It was not until 1914 or 1917 that we had the income tax. So there were no other tax bases. We grew up a system in this country based on property taxes. That is all broken down. We provide Pell grants for kids to go to college. Under elementary and secondary education, we provide teacher training, funding for special education. We do all of this. Why shouldn't we use the power in the Federal Government to help our State and local schools repair and modernize, build new facilities for the new century for our kids. In every case where I have seen this work, the money has been leveraged 6, 7, as much as 10 to 1 in those State and local communities. Especially with the economy going down, this is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath school construction. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, that is our goal.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator's efforts on this amendment. I strongly support these programs and agree we must make sure Hispanic students have the opportunity to succeed. That's why Senator Specter and I were pleased to include substantial increases for these programs. Unfortunately, because we chose to honor our commitment to stay on track to double the funding for NIH, and because we preserved funding for renovation which is also important to schools serving Hispanic students, we had less to spend on education than our House counterparts. I am pleased that, by adopting this amendment, we will be able to increase HEP by $3 million--a 15 percent increase, CAMP by $5 million-- a 50 percent increase, the HSI program by million for HSIs, $405 million for Migrant Education, and $600 million for Bilingual Education. Our amendment also includes $285 million for GEARUP and $805 million for TRIO; both programs prepare disadvantaged students to pursue and attend postsecondary education.