Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will do what I can. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for his diligence, moving forward rapidly on this matter. I look forward to the hearing. If my schedule permits, I would like to sit in on the hearing. I appreciate his offer.

Mr. HARKIN. Those doors have to be solid metal doors.

Mr. HARKIN. So we could have them well trained and they know what they are looking for. I share with my friend from South Carolina something that happened to me in August which gave me pause for concern, but you move on in life. I was making something; I had to get a 2-inch galvanized pipe that was about 32\1/2\ inches long. I had to drill some holes in it and I had to get it from here to my house in Iowa. I have been working on it here. I thought, how am I going to get it out there? It would not fit in my suitcase. So I got a cardboard tube from a package store and put it in the tube and taped it over. I thought to myself, boy, am I going to have trouble when that goes through the x-ray machine, 32\1/2\ inch long, galvanized, heavy pipe, into which I drilled holes. So I go through the x ray machine out here at National. I set it there and I thought, I have all my Senate ID and everything to show them I am a Senator and they can trust me. I could open it up and show them it is just a plain piece of pipe with some holes drilled in it. It went through the x ray machine and they didn't say anything, nothing. I could not believe it. I thought to myself, what if that had been filled with dynamite? What if it was not me and they just took it right on board with a fuse? I thought to myself, something has to change. For something like that to go through an x ray machine and they did not even pick it up, a pipe this long, that round, and probably about a quarter inch thick--and they did not pick it up? It should have been changed many years ago.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. This is the chairman's jurisdiction and I know of his intense interest. I did not know about the hearing. I applaud the Senator for that and congratulate the Senator for moving aggressively in this area. I say to my friend, better training of those individuals doing the checking is on my list; I just didn't read it. I didn't want to take all afternoon.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday was a day that will live in all of our memories. America was struck by an unprecedented and unprovoked act of violence, so vicious and calculated that the entire world has reacted in horror and revulsion. In that hour when so many were taken from us, America did not bend or buckle. We stood strong. That strength is best exemplified by the police, firefighters, and emergency services personnel who courageously raced to the scene. When everyone was running away from the danger, they were running toward it. Here in Washington, as the U.S. Capitol was being evacuated, our Capitol Police were standing guard. All of these public servants deserve our thanks. And their families, especially the families of the police and firefighters in New York who are currently missing, should know that our prayers are with them in this difficult time. We pray for those lost and for their families. In Iowa, Doug and Betty Haviland, our former neighbors in Ames, IA, are going through a difficult time right now. Their son, Tim, worked on the 96th floor of the World Trade Center, and Tim is currently missing. I want Doug and Betty to know that my thoughts and prayers are with them today. I am hoping for the best. The sister of my long-time friend Kasey Kincaid, an attorney in Des Moines, Karen Kincaid, an attorney here in Washington, born in Waverly, a graduate of Drake Law, was on the ill-fated flight that crashed into the Pentagon yesterday. When the smoke clears, we will comfort all the families in their time of need. We want them to know that although their loved ones may be gone, they are not alone. All of America stands with them. We are Americans and we take care of our own. The tallest buildings may crumble, but no one will bring down our spirit. We have survived tough times before; we will do so again. Let me be clear. These cowardly acts against our great Nation will not stand. I stand with President Bush in calling on every resource of our Government to track down the cowards who committed these acts and to bring them to swift and certain justice. We will seek out not only the terrorists but their backers and financers as well. Americans will do what we have always done. We will come together, get down to work, and we will demand justice. Mr. President, when we do strike back, we must be very careful. We must ensure that when we train our sights on the enemy, we do not harm innocent people in the crossfire. I want to quote the words of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, who spoke at a mass yesterday. He made a point that we should all take to heart: Let us pray for those who have lost their lives or who have been seriously injured in this calamity. But we must resist the temptation to strike out in vengeance and revenge and, in a special way, not to label any ethnic group or community for this action, which certainly is just the work of a few madmen. We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guide or direction. I could not agree more strongly. We must not use these events of yesterday to paint with a broad brush all Muslims, those of the Islamic faith or of Arabic descent. It has happened before; it should not happen again. Those who perpetrated these murders yesterday are not associated with Muslims or with the Islamic faith. If they claim they are on some kind of mission for Islam, that is just a lie. They are using the cloak of religion to justify the murder of innocent people. Again, we have seen this before. We must also make sure we do not fall prey to the theory that in order to defeat this enemy, we must become more like them. I am old enough to remember the McCarthy era, when there were those who said in order to defeat communism, we had to become a police state. There were reasonable voices that said: No, we do not have to; we can defeat communism and still maintain our freedoms. That, Mr. President, is what we must do. We as Americans respect civil rights and human rights and diversity. We are of diverse backgrounds and faiths. Muslims are part of the fabric of America, part of our strength. Let us be sure we go after the real enemy, and let us not paint with a broad stroke those who are of the Islamic faith who are Americans, who are Muslims, who are part of our great society. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, for proposing this important legislation and for offering this amendment today, which I am proud to cosponsor. Before I get into the need for the amendment and perhaps repeat some of the facts that the Senator from New Hampshire brought up, let me take a minute to summarize what happened in the Philippines and Japan between 1942 and 1945. On March 11, 1942, Gen. Douglas MacArthur reluctantly left behind thousands of American troops in the Philippines. Arriving in Melbourne, Australia, he pledged, of course, those famous words: ``I shall return.'' General MacArthur did return. He liberated the Philippines and rolled back the forces of imperial Japan. Sadly, MacArthur was too late for the hundreds who had died in the infamous Bataan Death March. In that 3-day forced march, American troops were denied food and water, beaten and bayoneted if they fell to the ground. As many as 700 Americans lost their lives in those 3 days. It also was too late for the thousands who lost their lives on the so-called hell ships that transported surviving POWs to Japan and Japanese-occupied territories. Packed into cargo holds, American POWs struggled for air, as temperatures reached 125 degrees. Almost 4,000 American servicemen would lose their lives just on these journeys in these cargo ships. Those who survived Bataan and the hell ships would find little rest as Japanese POWs. For more than 3 years, they would serve as slave labor for private Japanese companies, the same companies whose names we revere today and whose products we buy daily, weekly, and monthly in the United States: Matsui, Mitsubishi, Nippon, and others. Throughout the war, Americans worked in the mines of these companies, their factories, their shipyards, their steel mills. They labored every day for 10 hours or more a day in dangerous working conditions. Some of those who went into the mines were sent into the mines because it was too dangerous for Japanese to work in them. So they sent the American POWs into the coal mines to dig the coal. They were beaten on a regular basis. Frank Exline of Pleasant Hill, IA, was one of those POWs. A Navy seaman who was captured April 9, 1942, Frank spent 39 months working for Japanese companies in Osaka, Japan. He began on the docks unloading rock salt and keg iron. Later, he found himself toiling in the rice fields. He was fed two rice bowls a day and given very little water. During his time with these Japanese companies, Frank was tortured and beaten, once for stealing a potato. Upon being caught, the potato was shoved in his mouth as he was forced to stand at rigid attention directly in the sun for 45 minutes. If he moved or even blinked, he was hit in the face. Then there is Frank Cardamon of Des Moines, a marine who was stationed in China. His ship was sent back to the U.S. to get more supplies. When it stopped in the Philippines, of course, the ship was attacked and captured. Frank was captured at Corregidor and sent to Japan to work in an auto parts factory and then in the lead mines. He was never paid for his work, fed two cups of rice a day, and went from 160 pounds to 68 pounds in his 3 years of capture. These men tell me they survived on sheer will, not on the food. Last month in Iowa, as Senator Smith did in New Hampshire, I met with three other POWs and their families on this issue. I met with William McFall of Des Moines, who received a Purple Heart and numerous other medals. He worked in the coal mines and told me about how dangerous it was working in the coal mines. I met with the sisters of Jon Hood, a Navy seaman forced to work on the shipping docks. I met with Gene Henderson of Des Moines. He actually was not in the military. He was a civilian employee at the Pacific Naval Air Base on Wake Island. Gene Henderson was captured and sent to China to work on Japanese artillery ranges before he was sent to work in the iron ore pits in Japan. Although she could not attend the meeting I held, Margaret Baker of Oelwin, IA, wrote me a letter in June about her late husband Charles Baker. Charles Baker, who was an Army private, survived the Bataan Death March before he was sent to work in the mines in Japan for 3 years. He died at age 54 in 1973. In her letter she wrote: He suffered many injuries and hunger on the Death March during his imprisonment. We feel that his early death was caused by the suffering that he endured while working long hours in the mines, without food, rest and clothing. I speak for this amendment and support it on behalf of these veterans and their families. These men and 700 of their fellow prisoners of war and their families are now seeking long delayed justice. They have gone to court to ask for compensation from the Japanese companies that used them as slave laborers during the war. They deserve their day in court. Yet as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, our own State Department has come down on the side of the Japanese companies, not our POWs. The State Department has taken the view that the peace treaty signed in 1951 prohibits reparations from private Japanese companies for survivors such as Frank Cardamon or Gene Henderson. In fact, State Department officials have submitted statements to the Court in support of the view of the Japanese companies. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is fair. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Smith's amendment that would stop the State Department and the Department of Justice from using taxpayer dollars to defend the interests of these Japanese companies. I might add, the House passed this amendment in July by an overwhelming 393-to-33 vote, an amendment stating the State Department should not be allowed to use our tax dollars to fight against our American POWs in court. Now again, as Senator Smith said, I am sure while we both believe the Japanese companies ought to pay reparations and ought to pay these POWs for the slave labor they provided during the war, that is not what our amendment says. Our amendment simply says let them go to court; let them make their case; let the Japanese companies come in and defend themselves, if they will. That is all we are asking. We are not preconditioning the outcome. We are not setting up any kind of a standard by which they will be held in one view over the Japanese companies. We are simply saying let them have their day in court. We are saying our State Department should not be intervening in State or Federal courts against these POWs. Let the POWs have their own arguments and their day in court, and let us keep our State Department out of it. These men courageously served our country. They endured unspeakable, wretched conditions as slave laborers for these Japanese companies. MacArthur was forced to leave them behind in 1942. In 2001, let us not leave them behind one more time. Let us give them their day in court. My colleague has given all of the arguments. He has outlined what the treaty said in article 14(b). He laid out very cogently and clearly the side agreements that had been done by John Foster Dulles, at that time the chief negotiator for the allied nations, whose letters and side agreements were not brought to light until April of last year. So for all of these years these POWs and their lawyers really perhaps did not have a leg to stand on because of this treaty, but then after April of 2000 we found out the Japanese had made an agreement with the Government of the Netherlands to allow the private citizens of the Netherlands to pursue their private claims. Then article 26 of the 1951 peace treaty sort of trumps article 14(b). Now article 14(b), as Senator Smith pointed out, basically said: The allied powers waive all reparation claims of the allied powers, other claims of the allied powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war. On its face, that ends it. That ends it right there. For all of these years, that is what sort of the basis in court was. Article 26 did state, should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any state granting that state greater advantages than those provided by the present treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present treaty. We did not know until April 2000 that the Japanese Government had indeed made a war claims settlement with another state granting greater advantages to the nationals of that state, and that was, of course, the Dutch citizens because the diplomatic note to the Japanese Prime Minister from the Dutch Foreign Minister--again which was read by the Senator from New Hampshire, and I just repeat it for emphasis sake--it said that: It is my Government's view--that is, the Government's view of the Government of the Netherlands--that article 14(b), as a matter of correct interpretation, does not involve the expropriation by each allied government of the private claims of its nationals. So that after the treaty comes into force, these claims will be nonexistent. In other words, the Dutch Minister said: It is my Government's view that 14(b) does not prohibit private claims of the nationals of the Netherlands. The Japanese Prime Minister responded: In view of the constitutional legal limitations referred to by the government of the Netherlands, the government of Japan does not consider that the government of the Netherlands by signing the treaty has itself expropriated the private claims of its nationals so that, as a consequence thereof, after the treaty comes into force these claims would be nonexistent. Taken out of international State Department legalese, what that basically says is the Government of Japan has said to the Government of Netherlands that just signing this treaty does not mean you take away from your citizens their right of private claims against the Government of Japan or the nationals of the nation of Japan. This is the document we did not know about until April of 2000. So we know that article 26 of the treaty of 1951 now comes into full force and play, and because Japan made a war claims settlement with the Netherlands that gives them greater advantages than those provided in the present treaty, those same advantages should be extended to all of the parties of the present treaty. Therefore, we believe very strongly that our private citizens, our POWs who worked as slave laborers, have every right to pursue their claims in whatever courts they can find to take up those claims. Unfortunately, the Departments of State and Justice are not on the side of our POWs. They convinced a Federal judge to dismiss these lawsuits. This is fundamentally unfair. This amendment would correct this injustice. I do not know whether or not in a court of law these POWs will be able to prevail. I don't know all of the legal implications. I do know they should have their day in court to argue their claims against these private companies. It is not as if Mitsubishi, Matsui, and Nippon are bankrupt. These are multinational corporations. They are big. As the Senator from New Hampshire said, our POWs are getting older and not that many remain. It seems to me this is the fair and right thing to do, to make final these reparations, and without interference from the executive branch of the Government. I am constrained to say I hope no one interprets this amendment or our support for this amendment as somehow trying to bring up again World War II or bringing up in a way that would be detrimental to the present Government of Japan the actions taken during World War II. That is not our intention at all. We all recognize the Government of Japan is one of the great, strong democracies of our present world. They have a system of free government and free enterprise in Japan that is the envy of many places in the world. For a year and a half I was privileged to serve my country as a Navy pilot stationed at Atsugi airbase in Japan in the mid to late 1960's. I spent a year and a half living on the Japanese economy. I worked every day with men and women who worked for the Nippon Aircraft Corporation. I was one of their test pilots. I worked with them every day. During my year and a half there, I can honestly say I became an admirer of the Japanese people and an admirer of many of the things they have done after World War II. I don't for one minute admire anything they did during World War II, what the warlords did, what they did to lead that nation into World War II. The atrocities they committed during World War II are a definite blot on their history. Today, the Japanese Government stands as a beacon of democracy and representative government. The Japanese people, I think, have expunged themselves of this terrible legacy of World War II. I am saying this because I don't want anyone to interpret that we are using this amendment or offering this amendment as if making a detrimental statement about the present Government of Japan. That is not so. We are saying we believe in the rule of law, just as the Japanese Government, since World War II, believes in the rule of law. This rule of law we adhere to, that we believe in so strongly, says that people who are wronged, people who believe they have a claim against another person or a government, ought to have their day in court. That is all we are saying. Let them make their case. If the Japanese companies want to defend themselves and say they have already paid reparations, they have already paid in full for all of this, let them come to court and show us. That is all we are saying. The administration argues this amendment violates our Constitution regarding the separation of powers. This type of restriction we are now placing on appropriations by the participation of the Attorney General in private litigation has been enacted in Congress before and has been accepted and complied with by the executive branch. There was an example offered by Warren Rudman, another Senator from New Hampshire, passed in 1983 that barred the Justice Department from intervening in certain types of private antitrust lawsuits. We have done that many, many times in the past. I don't think the argument that somehow this violates our separation of powers holds any water. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue, for sticking up for our POWs and for offering this amendment. I hope it is passed overwhelmingly so we can coordinate with the House, which passed it overwhelmingly, and permit these lawsuits to move ahead and give POWs their long overdue day in court. They may have been left behind in 1942 by General MacArthur; let's not leave them behind one more time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond to my great friend--he is my great friend--and colleague from Hawaii. There is no one with whom I have greater respect and admiration in the Senate for all the years I have been here than the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. Certainly, I commend him for his statement and the courage he has shown to take his position on this matter. No one should in any way misinterpret the action taken by Senator Inouye in opposing this amendment. I know he comes at it with conscience and with his own feeling of what is right. I may not agree with his position on it, and let no one think that in any way Senator Inouye now or at any time has let down our country, or our veterans, or our military establishment. By his own life and by his own example, Senator Inouye has shown what it means to be a patriot and to put himself in harm's way and possibly give one's life for his country. He did that during World War II. No one could have been more proud than all of us here when President Clinton finally recognized his efforts, his dedication, and his sacrifice during war in finally granting Senator Inouye the Congressional Medal of Honor. It was a recognition that was long overdue. I hope that no one misinterprets what the Senator said in his opening statement about taking his position. I certainly don't, and no one else should. As I said, we have a disagreement. And, quite frankly, I am hard pressed to think of the last time I disagreed with the Senator from Hawaii because I have high regard for him in matters pertaining to our military, to our veterans, and the defense of our country. But I just happen to have a disagreement on this one issue. Again, I point out that all we are trying to do is give the day in court for our rule of law. I believe we can do so without in any way abrogating a treaty or harming our relations with Japan. As I said earlier, I have the highest esteem for Japan and the people of Japan. I would want nothing in any way to be misinterpreted that we are in any way trying to bring up the dark days of World War II again. But I believe just as strongly that our rule of law commands us not to do otherwise. We must permit them to have their day in court. It is their right. Again, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for offering the amendment. I particularly want to thank Senator Inouye for his years of dedication to our country, for his leadership during World War II, and for his 42 years of leadership in the Senate. I am sorry I have to disagree with him on this issue. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, let's keep in mind that all the Smith-Harkin amendment says is: Do not use taxpayers' money to have the State Department come into court to fight our former POWs who are seeking compensation from Japanese companies that never paid them. That is all we are asking. If the judge and the Supreme Court of the United States find that they cannot abrogate that treaty, that is the end of it, but at least give them their day in court. Let's not turn our backs on them. They suffered long enough. It is time they get their just compensation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, we are not abrogating any treaties with this amendment. How could we abrogate a treaty with an amendment that simply says: No moneys can be expended by the State Department Attorney General to go into court opposing our POW cases against private Japanese companies? That is all we are saying. Again, we have done this time and time and time again in the history of this country. This is not something new. We have the power to do that. We have the power of the purse strings. We are not abrogating the treaty. We are just saying that the U.S. Government cannot go into court using taxpayer money to oppose the POWs who are filing these lawsuits. If the court upholds the treaty and says that they cannot get anything, that they have already been compensated, well, that's the end of it. I guess they can appeal it to the Supreme Court of the United States, but if the courts find, as my friend from Hawaii says, that this treaty holds and would be abrogated, and we can't do that, then that is the end of the case, but at least the POWs will have had their day in court. That is all we are asking with this amendment. We are not abrogating any treaties; we are simply trying to uphold the rule of law and our own private citizens' rights. Let's keep in mind whom we are talking about: 30,000 men who served their country in unbearable conditions in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. Now we are talking about at least 700 of them--some from my own State of Iowa--seeking some long-delayed justice. They have gone to court to demand compensation from the Japanese companies that used them as slave laborers. And who were these companies? Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Nippon Steel. These are not tiny, little companies that are going to go broke because they might have to pay these people some back wages and compensation for what they endured during those war years. I think it is unconscionable that our own State Department has intervened in the courts to keep them from pressing their case. That is not right. It is not fair. So, No. 1, this amendment does not, in any way, undermine the treaty. Let the court decide that. All we are saying is, the State Department cannot use our taxpayers' money--the very taxes paid by these former POWs--to go into court to keep them from seeking redress. No. 2, this does not violate a separation of powers. We have, time and time again, used the power of the purse strings to say that the Attorney General cannot intervene in certain court cases. That is nothing new. We have done that before. No. 3, they have said the POWs have already been compensated by the United States. Well, I talked to three POWs from Iowa who were slave laborers in Japan during the war, and not one of them got paid. So I do not know whom they are talking about, but they did not get a dime. No. 4, it has been said this opens up the United States to lawsuits from other countries. Again, the United States was known to treat our POWs more decently. Many of the German POWs who worked here in the cotton fields were indeed paid for their work when they worked in the United States as POWs. Again, we can get wrapped up in all these details, but let's keep in mind what we are talking about. We are talking about men who survived on a cup of rice a day. The one person I knew in Iowa, who is still alive, went from 160 pounds down to 68 pounds in 3 years working in a Japanese auto parts factory and then in the lead mines in Japanese occupied territory. Again, these survivors and their families should at least give them their day in court. That is all we are asking. Mitsubishi, they have a lot of money. Nippon Steel, they can hire the best lawyers if they want to argue this case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the number of former POWs in various States who would be affected by this class action suit: 1,454 in California, 200 in Arizona, 200 in Colorado, 150 in Georgia, 150 in Illinois--I am not going to read the whole list, but I ask to have that list printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. How many minutes do we have?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask again, Mr. President, who knows better what the farmers of America need, OMB and the bean counters or the National Corn Growers Association? Who knows better what our farmers need, the people down at the White House running around those corridors down there or the American Soybean Association and our soybean farmers? Who knows better about what our farmers need, the people down at OMB who say we only need three-fourths of what we had last year or the farmers of America, through their representatives here, who have said time and time again the House bill is inadequate? To show you how bad it really is, here is a letter dated today to me from the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Cotton Council, sent to me in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It says: The undersigned organizations are concerned that despite your best efforts to develop an emergency assistance package, the Senate's efforts to respond to the severe economic crisis facing agriculture will be unsuccessful unless emergency agricultural legislation is enacted prior to the August recess. With the House of Representatives already in recess, the only course available to the Senate to ensure that farmers receive $5.5 billion of funds earmarked for 2001 is to pass H.R. 2213 as passed by the House. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, nothing has changed. I can only assume my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to have had more money for our farmers. They would like to have had the Senate-passed bill to provide 100 percent of AMTA because this is what they asked for. That is what we put in the Senate bill. But, obviously, the President said no. The President said no; farmers had enough. I also point out what else was in our bill in terms of conservation. Our bill provided funding for a number of USDA conservation programs. The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and Farmland Protection Program are all in jeopardy because the House bill has zero dollars for conservation. Let me show you what it is in terms of all of the funding for these programs. Here is the Wetlands Reserve Program. Right now the total backlog is about $568 million. In our bill, we had $200 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program to cut that in half. Here are the top 10 States that need funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program. I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas, a distinguished member of our committee, here in the Chamber. Arkansas has $89 million in backlog for the Wetlands Reserve Program. These are all eligible enrollments. But we don't have the money for it. At least our bill would have cut that almost in half. Iowa, my State, $81.9 million; California, $78.9 million; Louisiana, $69 million; Mississippi, $18 million. All of these States have backlogs for the Wetlands Reserve Program. The House provides zero dollars. That puts the Wetlands Reserve Program in jeopardy. We have the Farmland Protection Program to help buy easements to keep our farmland in farmland rather than in urban sprawl. The total U.S. backlog is $255 million. We had $40 million in our bill, which coupled with money from the States, local governments and non-profit organizations would have helped a lot to save farmland. The House bill had zero dollars for that. Under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the backlog is $14 million. We had $7 million in our bill, again to cut that backlog in half. Here are all the States with all of the backlogs that we could have helped in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Lastly, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, with a backlog of $1.3 billion. We had $250 million in our bill to reduce that down. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record four charts showing the backlogs in USDA conservation programs for a number of States.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I want you to know how proud I am to have stood side by side with the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association Of Wheat Growers, and the National Cotton Council. We have fought side by side to respond to the dire needs of our farmers in America. But, as this letter shows, we have a gun held to our heads. If we don't pass that House bill today, we risk losing even that amount of money. We have this confrontation. I had hoped that the President would be willing to meet with us to seek some reasonable compromise. After all, this President came to town saying he wanted to be a conciliator. He wanted to work together in a bipartisan fashion to seek compromise. We want to seek compromise. The House passed $5.5 billion. We passed $7.5 billion. We were willing to meet and discuss and work out some compromise. The White House was unwilling to meet and unwilling to compromise. I have heard time after time speeches on the other side of the Senate. I have heard from my Republican friends saying how bad it is in agriculture and how much we need this assistance. But, obviously, the President has said no. In my conversations with the head of OMB last night, I kept saying: Why? For what reason is it $5.5 billion or nothing? He said that is our number--5.5. It was almost like a mantra. He said: It is 5.5, and we are not going to budge from it. It is one thing to have a strong position, but it is another thing to have a position in which you have taken a strong stand that does not correlate with the facts. The facts are that farmers and rural America need a lot more help than what this House bill provides. Again, I point out what the difference between the House-passed bill and the Senate bill means for our farmers around America. These are the payments that would go out to farmers in a number of States in this country. In this column, we see what the Senate bill would provide. We see in this column the House bill. The comparisons are just on the commodity title, but do not include the specialty crop purchases or House bill specialty crop payments to states. This is how much each State will lose because the President refused to compromise. Washington State will lose $103 million for their farmers. That is the difference between what the Senate bill had and what the House bill had. Washington State farmers will get $75 million from the House bill. We had $178 million in our bill for Washington State farmers. Washington farmers are going to be hurt and hurt badly. So will their community banks; so will the auto dealers; so will the hardware stores; the feed stores; and, everyone else in those small towns all over the State of Washington. In Iowa, in my home State, farmers will lose $91.47 million because the President said no, again just on the commodity title and not counting conservation, for example. In Minnesota, they will lose $82.7 million; Texas, $82.4 million. In the President's home State, farmers are going to lose $82.42 million. In Illinois, they will lose $81.6 million. In Nebraska, they will lose $65.2 million; Kansas will lose $61.7 million for their farmers; North Dakota, $60.7 million; California, $52.5 million; Arkansas will lose $43.9 million for their farmers; Indiana will lose $40.12 million; Louisiana, $32 million; South Dakota, $32 million; Missouri, $31 million; Michigan, $31 million; Ohio, $29 million; Montana, $24 million; Wisconsin, $24 million; Idaho, $23.9 million; Oklahoma, $22.8 million; Mississippi, $22 million. That is what the House bill is going to cost the farmers in those States because the President said no. The President is determined that the House bill was sufficient to take care of the farmers in those States. Time and time again I see the President visiting farms. How many farms is he going to have to visit before he gets the picture and before he understands what is happening in rural America? I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of March 13 sent to the Honorable Pete Domenici, chairman --at that time-- of the Budget Committee. It was signed by 21 Members of the Senate asking that the 2001 Agriculture Market Transition Act payment be the same as it was last year. The letter went on to say how bad things are in rural America with high production costs, fuel, fertilizer, and interest rates with projections that farm income will not improve in the near future. It says: We believe it is vitally important to provide at least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as was provided for the 2000 crop. I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the accompanying signatures be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is the situation, just for the benefit of all who are watching and wondering what happened. Basically what has happened is that the Senate just took up the House-passed Agriculture emergency bill and passed it, and therefore it will be sent to the President for his signature. I also point out we still have pending in the Senate the bill that was passed by our committee and there has been entered a motion to reconsider that has been placed by our leader, by Senator Daschle of South Dakota. So at some point when we come back it is entirely within the realm of feasibility or possibility that this Senate might want to revisit that Senate bill because it is clear that the House bill is totally inadequate to meet the needs of our farmers across the country. I am proud of our committee and the work it did. Keep in mind that our committee was not reconstituted or able to do business until June 29, because the Senate organizing resolution was held up until then. And we did not have our full membership until July 10. But our committee worked diligently to look at the entire spectrum of farm families across America to try to determine what was needed to keep these farm families in business, keep their heads above water for yet another year until we can get a farm bill passed. The bill we reported out met the needs of farmers across America. Yet the White House said no. I again point out that our committee voted the Senate bill out on a bipartisan vote. The Senate voted, again on a bipartisan vote, in favor of our bill and the provisions we had in our bill. But the White House said no. Now we are at the point, because the House has left, they went home, and because we need to get this money out, that a gun is held at our heads by the White House and by OMB. They are saying if we do not pass the House bill, or if we pass something more adequate to the need in rural America we may lose even the $5.5 billion the House provided. So the gun was held at our heads and the White House refused to compromise. Yesterday I spoke several times with the head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, I spoke with the President's chief of staff, and I spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture to see if they would at least meet with us to see if there could be some compromise worked out. I said to the President's chief of staff last night: I respectfully request a meeting with the President at least to lay out our case on why the House bill was inadequate. That meeting was denied. So the President decided he would accept only $5.5 billion, which is only about three-fourths of what Congress passed in a similar bill last year. I had a long visit with the head of OMB on the phone last night to try to determine why they picked that number. He said: Well, it looked as if farm income was a little bit better this year. I said: Compared to what? We have had extremely low commodity prices, in some cases at about 30-year lows. Now, because livestock receipts were up a little bit the ag picture looks a little bit better than it did last year, but we are still in the basement. However, the money in this bill mainly goes to crop farmers, and they are the ones who are hurting the most. They are not only as bad off as last year, but they are probably worse off than last year because the prices are still low and all of their production costs have gone up--fertilizer, fuel, everything. Yet somehow the bean counters down at OMB have said no, the House bill is sufficient. I will resubmit for the Record at this time letters or statements from just about all of the main farm organizations: The American Farm Bureau, National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the National Barley Growers Association and others--all saying that the House bill is inadequate. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record. [From the Voice of Agriculture, Monday July 30, 2001] Farm Bureau Disappointed in House Funding for Farmers Washington, DC., June 21, 2001--The House Agriculture Committee's decision to provide only $5.5 billion in a farm relief package ``is disheartening and will not provide sufficient assistance needed by many farm and ranch families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. ``We believe needs exceed $7 billion,'' Stallman said. ``The fact is agricultural commodity prices have not strengthened since last year when Congress saw fit to provide significantly more aid.'' Stallman said securing additional funding will be a high priority for Farm Bureau. He said the organization will now turn its attention to the Senate and then the House-Senate conference committee that will decide the fate of much-needed farm relief. ``Four years of low prices has put a lot of pressure on farmers. We need assistance to keep this sector viable,'' the farm leader said. ``We've been told net farm income is rising but a closer examination shows that is largely due to higher livestock prices, not most of American agriculture,'' Stallman said. ``And, costs are rising for all farmers and ranchers due to problems in the energy industry that are reflected in increased costs for fuel and fertilizer. Farmers and ranchers who produce grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables need help and that assistance is needed soon.''

Mr. HARKIN. These States have tremendous backlogs and needs in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to help clean up the water and conserve resources in these States. We had about $\1/2\ billion in our bill to help all of the States meet the environmental standards and needs in States. Many of the farmers in these States have to meet environmental standards, and even without requirements, farmers and ranchers strive to take care of the land. They want to do their best to be good stewards. In many cases farmers are doing this out of their own pockets with their own machinery and their own time. I believe we need to help them. We need to help these farmers meet these environmental standards. Yet the House bill provides nothing. It is too bad that the President would not even meet with us and would not try to work out some decent compromise. We were willing. The President said, no. They made their point they were only going to have $5.5 billion for our farmers; they were not going to have any conservation. We also wanted to broaden this bill out to address the needs of our specialty crop producers in America, the people who raise peas and lentils and apples and all the other fruits and vegetables that are part of our great bounty that we have in this country. These farmers are hurting, too. We tried to help them. The House bill does a little bit, but hardly anything at all, to help these beleaguered farmers. Lastly, I want to say--and I want to make this point one more time, as I made it to OMB and to the White House--the $7.5 billion that we had in our bill fully complied with the budget. No budget point of order would lay against our bill. We had $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. We used $2 billion of the $7.35 billion that was allowed us in 2002. We did not bust any budgets. We stayed within the budget. We met our obligations, and we met our obligations both to fiscal responsibility and also our responsibility to the farmers of this country. So I will close by saying that the fight goes on. This Senator, and I am sure many other Senators in this body, are not going to give up. The President got his way because he has the veto. I am hopeful that we can work with the White House in August and in September, and going into this fall, on two things. One is to shape and fashion a new farm bill that will get us off the failed policies of the past. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Freedom to Farm bill has failed, and failed miserably. We need a new farm bill. We need a new vision of agriculture in America. We need a farm bill that will move us into the 21st century. I look forward to working with the administration and with the Secretary of Agriculture, for whom I have the highest regard and respect, to fashion that new farm bill. I also hope that as we go into the fall, we should come back and see what we might need to fill the gap between the end of September and whenever the farm bill is passed. The House bill we passed shorted farmers in Iowa and across the nation. The market loss and oilseed payments were cut back. The specialty crops were left out. Conservation was left out. Some assistance to our dairy farmers was left out. I hope we can come back in September--maybe early October--and revisit this and, hopefully, have the help and the support of the White House at that time to at least fill in that gap. That is what we tried to do in this bill, to fill in the gap from the end of September until such time as the farm bill is passed and enacted to make sure that our programs for conservation were not interrupted, and to make sure that farmers were taken care of. The fiscal year may end on September 30, but the crop-year does not. Farmers need help in October and November. So hope springs eternal. The fight goes on. We will never give up the fight to provide the kind of assistance and support that our farmers and our farm families need--and not just those in the Midwest, but those in Michigan and New York and Washington State and all over this country, to make sure that those farm families are able to continue and to provide the agricultural products that we need for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend's pursuit of relief for his constituents. I can promise to work closely with you concerning fair drought relief funding for the farm families in the Klamath Basin.

Mr. HARKIN. I agree with you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Certainly, I will work with you to address possible long term solutions for the Klamath in the Farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate your understanding that there is a difference between the economic-based problems we are trying to address in the current bill and natural disaster related relief in an emergency or supplemental funding bill later this year, once we know the full extent of nature's toll on agriculture this season. However, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 provided $20,000,000 for farmer families in the Klamath. How much additional money will the farmers in the basin be needing?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from New York is next up to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I speak for about 3 minutes without jeopardizing her right to speak.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, be added to the list of speakers and be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I take this time to express my deep gratitude to my ranking member, my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, to thank him for the graciousness he has given to me, first when he was chairman and I was ranking member and now when I am chairman and he is ranking member. I could not ask for a better partner on the Senate Agriculture Committee than Senator Lugar. We have worked very closely together. This legislative disagreement we had here this week again reminds me of why this is called the crucible of democracy. We grind these issues out in time and we move ahead, which is what I have always loved about the legislative process. Friends can differ. We can fight these things out and work them out, and we move ahead. I am quite taken by what the distinguished ranking member said about looking ahead on the farm bill. We have discussed this personally, in private, many times. Everything the distinguished ranking member just mentioned is something I feel strongly about and feel deeply about. I believe we are going to have many, many opportunities to work together this fall to fashion a new farm bill, as the distinguished ranking member said, that looks at the broad spectrum of agriculture beyond just production but all of the aspects of agriculture. I am quite heartened by his words and, again, I want the Senator from Indiana to know how much I really appreciate the many kindnesses he and his staff have shown to me and my staff through all of the processes of the changes that have come about this summer, and working on this bill, and I really look forward to working with him on the development of the new farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand under the unanimous consent request I am recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Excuse me just one second. I am supposed to add someone else. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added to the list of speakers who have been granted 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from Arkansas for the very poignant speech she just gave about the plight of agriculture in America. Senator Lincoln has said it succinctly and with meaning and I think with a passion that she rightly has to fight for the people who live in our small towns and communities--our farmers. She is right. They are hurting. We have to pay attention. We are operating under the failed Freedom to Farm bill that was passed back in 1996. Year after year we have had to come in and patch it up, fix it up, and put in supplemental payments to keep our farmers alive, to keep their heads above water. It is another reason why in the new farm bill we have to make the changes necessary to get off of the old failed Freedom to Farm bill and to have a farm bill where we don't have to rely on a yearly basis on a fickle Congress or a President who says no. We have come up with a bill out of our Agriculture Committee that would at least provide for our farmers the same payment they received last year to help keep them going. But, even with those payments, it won't make them whole because of the increased fuel prices and fertilizer prices and everything else. I have heard from the administration that the reason they don't want the bill we reported out of the Committee is because they have seen net farm income go up this year. I am sorry. I don't know what figures they are looking at. I think what they are saying is last year our farm prices were at a 15-year low. Farm income is a little better than last year, but really the increase comes almost entirely from increased livestock prices--not grain prices. Prices are still in the basement. But the bill before us provides money to the crop farmers. They are the ones who are hurting. But the President said no, that he is going to veto the bill because he said farmers don't need that much money. Keep in mind that the bill is within our budget guidelines. We are doing exactly what the budget allows us to do, but the President says no, it is too much. This is the difference. I have to point this out. In the fall of 1998, Congress passed emergency relief for farmers. It went to the White House. President Clinton vetoed it because it wasn't enough to help our farmers. We came back and added more money to keep our farmers alive and well. This year the Senate passed a bill to provide sufficient support for our farmers. This President says no, he will veto it because it is too much. What a difference. What do we have here that is costing extra money? We have the full level of market loss and oilseed payments that were in a similar package last year. We also have nutrition, rural economic development and conservation money. We have money for several conservation programs, including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Right now for the Wetlands Reserve Program we have a backlog of $568 million nationwide. Here are the top 10 States with the backlog: Arkansas, Iowa, California, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and Mississippi. Our bill provides $200 million to cut that backlog down by over a third. It would enroll 150,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program. The President says no. That is too much. For the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the backlog is $14 million. We have put in $7 million to cut it down by half. Again, the top 10 States are Oregon, Texas, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Arkansas, and South Dakota. We had $7 million, and the President says no. That is too much. The Farmland Protection Program is a program that provides some money for the state and local governments and non-profit groups so they can buy development easements from farmers to stop the urban sprawl. There is a $255 million backlog for FPP. The top 10 States are: California, New York, Maryland, Florida, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. In that program, we put $40 million to help leverage money supplied by state and local governments, as well as non-profit groups--they are already doing it--to help buy easements to keep the land from being developed for non-agricultural purposes. The President says: No, that is too much money. Finally, we have the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The backlog is over $1.3 billion. We have $250 million in the bill, plus $200 million already in the law, which would help cut that down by about a third. Again, the top 10 States are: Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Virginia. We put $250 million in the bill. The President says: No, it is too much money. It is not too much, in any case, to help save our soil and our water, to provide conservation money to farmers and ranchers in America who need the help and who need the support. The Lugar substitute, that I guess we will be voting on, takes out all this conservation money. It provides zero dollars for conservation. It is rather sad that we are in this situation. We are trying to help farmers be good stewards and the President stands in the way. As Senator Lincoln said: Our farmers are good stewards of their land. They try to take good care of it. In many cases, these farmers are spending their own money, using their own equipment, spending their time--and all we are trying to do is give them some help and support. And the President has said: No, that is too much. We will debate this more tomorrow. But tonight I wanted to just point out what we have in the bill, to try to help our farmers with conservation. Three of these programs will be put into jeopardy, and all will be underfunded. The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program will all be put in jeopardy because we will not fund them if the Lugar amendment is adopted. Finally, I have had a lot of conversations with people at the White House and OMB today. They want to spend only $5.5 billion. When I asked why, I got the answer: Because they want $5.5 billion. I don't see any real reason for it because the budget does allow us to spend not only $5.5 billion in fiscal 2001, but $7.35 billion for fiscal 2002. So what we are trying to do is what the budget allows us to do right now: get the money out to help our farmers now, get the conservation program funding out, and get money out to help some of our specialty crop producers around the country. And basically the President is saying, no. I hope the Senate will persevere. I hope we will tell the President we have to fight for our farmers and our farm families; that we cannot, for no good reason fail to send the help they need. I have not heard one good reason from the White House why we should not put this money out to help save our farmers. I believe we have to, that we must, and I hope we do tomorrow. Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.