Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, everyone in this body stated their commitment to keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent. What this amendment does is it says we are going to stick to that commitment before we put in place certain tax policy changes. This amendment is very simple and straightforward. It simply delays-- does not do away with--the implementation of the cut in the top rate for the wealthiest of Americans until we have passed, and the President has signed, legislation that OMB certifies will assure the long-term solvency of both Social Security and Medicare. The bill before us sets us back in our effort to ensure Social Security and Medicare solvency. In order to pay for these tax cuts, which go disproportionately to the wealthy few, and then also to meet our basic needs such as health care and law enforcement, in future years Social Security and Medicare would be raided. This is unacceptable. We need to strengthen these programs as we prepare the baby boomers to retire and not raid them to give tax breaks to a very wealthy few. Again, this amendment simply says we delay the cut in the top rate until we secure Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 727.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Conservation Security Act of 2001, a bill that represents a fresh bipartisan farmer- friendly approach to farm policy and agricultural conservation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Gordan Smith from Oregon, as well as Senators Daschle, Leahy, Dorgan, Johnson, Dayton, Schumer, Clinton, Stabenow, Kohl, Sarbanes, Kerry, Kennedy, Wellstone, Durbin, and Boxer. America's farmers and ranches produce a bountiful, safe, and nourishing food supply, and they also protect our natural resources, environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranches have a long history of stewardship of private lands. They are the key to enhancing conservation of resources for future generations. Private land conservation became a national priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 1930s of the Soil Conservation Service, (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), at the Department of Agriculture. With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the federal government stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers conserve their precious soils. Since that time, total federal spending on conservation has steadily declined in inflation-adjusted dollars. Funds for lands in production have been especially hard hit. Yet today, agriculture faces a wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure management to cropland runoff and air quality impairment. Urban and rural citizens alike are increasingly interested in supporting conservation on agricultural lands. Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land, but they are limited by financial constraints. Every dollar spent on constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is a dollar unavailable for other purposes. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for each dollar in a farm's budget. Who benefits from conservation on agricultural lands? As much or more than farmers, all of us, depend on the careful stewardship of our air, water, soil and other natural resources. Farmers and ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our nation's natural resources. Since all Americans share in these benefits, it is only right that we contribute to conserving private lands. It is time to enter into a true conservation partnership with farmers and ranchers to help ensure hat conservation is an integral and permanent part of our agricultural policy nationwide. In the 1985 farm bill, we required farmers who wanted to participate in USDA farm programs to develop soil conservation plans for their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost-share and incentive payments for certain practices. These measures have helped enhance the environment and natural resources, but we still have more to do. The Conservation Security Act of 2001 builds on our past successes and takes a bold step forward in farm and conservation policy. The Conservation Security Act would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment program, the Conservation Security Program, to support and encourage conservation activities by farmers and ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive as much as $50,000 a year in-conservation payments by entering into 5- to 10-year agreements with USDA and carrying out eligible conservation practices. Moreover, the program is designed to encourage implementation of practices that address local conservation priorities. Payments are based on the number and types of practices and level of conservation carried out on their lands in agricultural production. Farmers and ranchers may choose to implement practices from one or more of the following three tiers of practices. In Tier I, participating farmers would adopt or maintain basic individual practices, including nutrient management, soil conservation, and wildlife habitat management on part or all of their operation. Tier I plans are for 5-year periods. Based on enrolled acreage, practices and the level of conservation, farmers or ranchers in Tier I would receive annual payments that could reach as much as $20,000. A one-time advance payment could be made of the greater of $1,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. Farmers or ranchers in Tier II would implement more extensive conservation practices on their working lands. They could choose from Tier I practices and practices II practices, including controlled rotational grazing, partial field practices like buffers strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration and wildlife habitat enhancement, for a period of 5 to 10 years, at the farmer's discretion. The practices adopted in Tier II must address at least one resource of concern (i.e. water quality, air quality, soil quality, wildlife habitat, etc.) for the entire operation. For adopting or maintaining Tier II practices, farmers or ranchers would receive up to $35,000 a year with access to a one-time advance payment of the greater of $2,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. To qualify under Tier III, farmers and ranchers would adopt a comprehensive set of conservation practices on the entire operation. The Practices would address all resources of concern on the operation, including air, land, water and wildlife. For carrying out a Tier III plan of practices, farmers and ranchers would receive up to $50,000 a year with access to a one-time advance payment of the greater of $3,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be totally voluntary. Farmers and ranchers would decide if they want to participate and to what extent they want to participate. The more conservation they do, the greater the payment. Many farmers are already using many of these practices, but they receive little or no financial support. This legislation changes that by rewarding those farmers and ranchers who have already implemented these practices through payments for maintaining them. In addition, the Conservation Security Act provides a strong incentive to go beyond the farm's current level of conservation. And it does so in a way that is compatible with our international trade obligations. The payments received under the Conservation Security Program would fit into the ``Green Box'' under the WTO Uruguay Round. Payments received under the Conservation Security Program are not linked to participation in commodity programs, and farmers don't have to participate in the Conservation Security Program to be eligible for commodity payments. Further, the Conservation Security Act, which focuses on land in production, complements and does not interfere with the existing conservation programs. A farmer or rancher may participate in these programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program and still participate in the Conservation Security Program. We need to support these and the other conservation programs, but to truly benefit agriculture and address the public's desire to enhance the environment, natural resources and wildlife habitat on agricultural land we must also address conservation needs on land in production. Farmers and ranchers across our country want to take actions to enhance the environment, but they need financial and technical assistance. The Conservation Security Act provides that needed assistance. Further, the Conservation Security Act was crafted to include opportunities for all producers nationwide, including producers of fruits, vegetables, speciality crops, row crops and livestock to participate in the Conservation Security Program. Our private lands are a national treasure, and conservation on farm and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as important as the production of abundant and safe food. The Conservation Security Act will help secure the economic future of our farmers and ranchers by providing them the means to increase their income while conserving our natural resources, the environment, and wildlife habitat for today and for future generations. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the people of Burma continue to suffer at the hands of the world's most brutal military dictatorship which cynically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council, (SPDC). Now more than ever, as a nation committed to internationally-recognized human rights and worker rights, democracy, and freedom, America must heed the call of the International Labor Organization, (ILO), and support stronger, coordinated multilateral actions against Burma's repressive regime. In the face of overwhelming evidence of continued, systematic use of forced labor, including forced child labor in Burma, we must do all we can to deny any material support to the military dictators who rule that country with an iron fist. Furthermore, there is no clear and tangible evidence that the latest informal, closed-door dialogue between the Burmese generals on one side and Aung San Suu Kyi and the other duly-elected leaders of the pro- democracy movement on the other side is bearing fruit. Therefore, we must demonstrate anew to the Burmese people our recognition of their nightmarish plight as well as our support for their noble struggle to achieve democratic governance. In 1997, a strong, bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted some sanctions and former President Clinton issued an Executive Order in response to a prolonged pattern of egregious human rights violations in Burma. At the heart of those measures is the existing prohibition on U.S. private companies making new investments in Burma's infrastructure. Many other national governments, as well as scores of city and State governments in the U.S. followed suit and adopted their own sanctions. Nevertheless, the ruling military junta in Burma has clung to power and continues to blatantly violate internationally-recognized human and worker rights. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Country Report on Burma cited ``credible reports that Burmese Army soldiers have committed rape, forced porterage, and extrajudicial killing.'' It referred to arbitrary arrests and the detention of at least 1300 political prisoners. The following excerpts from the most recent 2000 State Department Human Rights Country Report paint an even more disturbing reality: The Burmese Government's extremely poor human rights record and longstanding severe repression of its citizens continued during the year. Citizens continued to live subject at any time and without appeal to the arbitrary and sometimes brutal dictates of the military regime. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. There continued to be credible reports, particularly in ethnic minority areas, that security forces committed serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and rape. Disappearances continued, and members of the security forces tortured, beat, and otherwise abused prisoners and detainees. The judiciary is not independent and there is no effective rule of law. The Government continued to restrict worker rights, ban unions, and use forced labor for public works and for the support of military garrisons. Forced labor, including forced child labor, remains a serious problem. The use of forced labor as porters by the army--with attendant mistreatment, illness, and sometimes death--remain a common practice. In November, 2000 the International Labor Organization ILO Governing Body judged that the Government had not taken effective action to deal with `widespread and systematic' use of forced labor in the country and, for the first time in its history, called on all ILO members to apply sanctions to Burma. Child labor is also a problem and varies in severity depending on the country's region. Trafficking in persons, particularly in women and girls to Thailand and China, mostly for the purposes of prostitution, remain widespread. As of September, 2000, the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited more than 35,000 prisoners in at least 30 prisons, including more than 1,800 political prisoners. The ICRC also has begun tackling the problem of the roughly 36,000 persons in forced labor camps. The Government continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights, and security forces continued to monitor citizens' movements and communications systematically, to search homes without warrants, and to relocate persons forcibly without just compensation or due process. The SPDC continued to restrict severely freedom of speech, press assembly, and association. It has pressured many thousands of members to resign from the National League for Democracy, NLD, and closed party offices nationwide. Since 1990 the junta frequently prevented the NLD and other pro- democracy parties from conducting normal political activities. The junta recognizes the NLD as a legal entity; however, it refuses to accept the legal political status of key NLD party leaders, particularly the party's general secretary and 1991 Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, and restrict her activities severely through security measures and threats. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch/Asia reports that children from ethnic minorities are forced to work under inhumane conditions for the Burmese Army, lacking adequate medical care and sometimes dying from beatings. Last year, the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, in a chilling and alarming account, puts the number of child soldiers at 50,000, the highest in the world. Sadly, the children most vulnerable to recruitment into the military are orphans, street children, and the children of ethnic minorities. The same UN report also discusses the dire state of minorities in Burma who continue to be the targets of violence. Specifically, it details that the most frequently observed human rights violations aimed at minorities include extortion, rape, torture and other forms of physical abuse, forced labor, ``portering'', arbitrary arrests, long- term imprisonment, forcible relocation, and in some cases, extrajudicial executions. It also cites reports of massacres in the Shan state in the months of January, February, and May of 2000. A 1998 International Labor Organization Commission of Inquiry determined that forced labor in Burma is practiced in a ``widespread and systematic manner, with total disregard for the human dignity, safety, health and basic needs of the people.'' Last August, California District Court Judge Ronald Lew found in one high-profile court case ``ample evidence in the record linking the Burmese Government's use of forced labor to human rights abuses.'' In sum, the Burmese military junta continues to commit such horrific and appalling human rights and worker rights violations that we have no choice but to unite with other nations around the world and take stronger action. Even though the Burmese military junta has been terrorizing the 48 million people of Burma since it came to power in 1988 and has vowed to destroy the National League for Democracy, NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi, a remarkably courageous leader and very brave woman, manages to stand steadfast, like a living Statue of Liberty, in her undaunted quest and that of the Burmese people for democracy. We must never forget that she and her NLD colleagues won 392 of 485 seats in a democratic election held in 1990. But they have never been allowed to take office. Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and countless others are denied freedom of association, speech and movement on a daily basis. Last summer, she came under renewed threats and intimidation. For example, her vehicle was forced off the road last August by Burmese security forces when she tried to travel outside Rangoon to meet with her NLD colleagues. She sat in her car on the roadside for a week until a midnight raid of 200 riot police forced her back to her home and placed her under house arrest until September 14, 2000. Nevertheless, she tried again on September 21st, but she was prevented from boarding a train. The pathetic excuse from the authorities for abridging her freedom to travel within Burma, on that occasion, was that all tickets had been sold out. This Congress must answer anew the cry of the Burmese people and their courageous freedom-fighters. That is why I am introducing bipartisan legislation today, along with Senator Jessee Helms and several of our colleagues, to ban soaring imports from Burma, most of which are apparel and textiles sold by many brand-name American retailers. I am equally pleased that U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos from California is introducing the companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives this week. Most Americans think that a trade ban with Burma already exists. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I began investigating U.S. trade with Burma last summer in concern with the National Labor Committee, I was chocked and alarmed to discover skyrocketing U.S. apparel and textile imports for example. Last November I requested cable traffic between the U.S. Embassy in Burma and the U.S. State Department at Foggy Bottom to see exactly what officials in Washington, D.C. knew about soaring imports from Burma. It took nearly four months for me to get this unclassified cable traffic. But now I know why. Its contents are very troubling. It constitutes irrefutable evidence that current U.S. sanctions with Burma are far more apparent than real. They are far more bluster than bite. Consider the fact that the U.S. Government currently provides the Burmese military junta with very easy access to the U.S. apparel market because 95 percent of their exports are under no practical import restrictions at all. Due to rising imports of apparel and textiles from Burma alone, more than $400 million dollars are now flowing into the coffers of the Burmese military dictatorship. These ruthless military dictators and their drug-trafficking cohorts are spending this hard currency to purchase more guns from China and to buy loyalty among their troops to continue their policy of extreme repression and human cruelty. In other words, American consumers are unwittingly helping to sustain the repressive military junta's grip on power when buying travel and sports bags, women's underwear, jumpers, shorts, tank tops and towels made in the Burmese gulag. It is outrageous that many brand-name U.S. apparel companies such as FILA, Jordache, and Arrow Golf are making more and more of their clothes in the Burmese gulag where many workers earn as little as 7 cent/hour or $3.23/week and where production is non-stop--24 hours/day and 7 days/week. Make no mistake about it. U.S. apparel imports from Burma are providing the SPDC with a growing source of critically-needed hard currency because the military dictators directly own or have taken de facto control of production in many apparel and textile factories. They are further enriched by a 5 percent export tax. As I said earlier, this hard currency is used to finance the purchase of new weapons and ammunition from China and elsewhere, thus helping to underwrite the perpetuation of modern-day slavery, forced labor and forced child labor in Burma. But you don't have to take my work for it. U Maung Maung, the General Secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions in Burma, decried at a recent news conference in Washington, D.C., that ``the practice of purchasing garments made in Burma extends the continued exploitation of my people, including the use of slave labor by the regime, by further delaying the return of democratic government in Burma.'' At grave personal risk, he and other NLD leaders have disclosed the growing importance of exports to America and other foreign markets in helping sustain the Burmese military junta in power. Some may question whether a ban on Burmese trade, including apparel and textile imports, might not harm American companies and consumers? Nothing could be further from the truth. Currently, U.S. apparel and textile imports from Burma account for less than one-half of one percent of total U.S. apparel and textile imports. Others may assert that enactment of this legislation would violate WTO rules. Yes, Burma does belong to the WTO. Accordingly, the SPDC would have the standing technically to bring a formal complaint when this legislation is enacted. But our response to such a development should be bring it on. Let the Burmese generals argue before the WTO that they have the right to export products made by forced labor and child slaves and in flagrant violation of other internationally- recognized worker rights. This would clearly bring into focus the folly of writing rules for global trade that don't include enforceable worker rights, thus compelling workers in civilized trading nations to have to compete for their jobs de facto with forced labor in Burma. America must answer the clarion call of the ILO and take a stronger stand in solidarity with the Burmese people and in defense of universal human rights and worker rights in that besieged nation. A trade ban with Burma will reaffirm the belief of the American people that increased trade with foreign countries must promote respect for human rights and worker rights as well as property rights. It will also signal American readiness to join in a new and stronger course of coordinated, multilateral action that is designed to force the Burmese generals from power once and for all and to satisfy the yearning of the Burmese people for democratic, self-government. In closing, I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that four recent editorials from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe calling attention to the profound and prolonged suffering of the Burmese people and the need for stronger action in the U.S. and around the world also be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Conservation Security Act of 2001, a bill that represents a fresh bipartisan farmer- friendly approach to farm policy and agricultural conservation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Gordan Smith from Oregon, as well as Senators Daschle, Leahy, Dorgan, Johnson, Dayton, Schumer, Clinton, Stabenow, Kohl, Sarbanes, Kerry, Kennedy, Wellstone, Durbin, and Boxer. America's farmers and ranches produce a bountiful, safe, and nourishing food supply, and they also protect our natural resources, environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranches have a long history of stewardship of private lands. They are the key to enhancing conservation of resources for future generations. Private land conservation became a national priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 1930s of the Soil Conservation Service, (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), at the Department of Agriculture. With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the federal government stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers conserve their precious soils. Since that time, total federal spending on conservation has steadily declined in inflation-adjusted dollars. Funds for lands in production have been especially hard hit. Yet today, agriculture faces a wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure management to cropland runoff and air quality impairment. Urban and rural citizens alike are increasingly interested in supporting conservation on agricultural lands. Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land, but they are limited by financial constraints. Every dollar spent on constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is a dollar unavailable for other purposes. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for each dollar in a farm's budget. Who benefits from conservation on agricultural lands? As much or more than farmers, all of us, depend on the careful stewardship of our air, water, soil and other natural resources. Farmers and ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our nation's natural resources. Since all Americans share in these benefits, it is only right that we contribute to conserving private lands. It is time to enter into a true conservation partnership with farmers and ranchers to help ensure hat conservation is an integral and permanent part of our agricultural policy nationwide. In the 1985 farm bill, we required farmers who wanted to participate in USDA farm programs to develop soil conservation plans for their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost-share and incentive payments for certain practices. These measures have helped enhance the environment and natural resources, but we still have more to do. The Conservation Security Act of 2001 builds on our past successes and takes a bold step forward in farm and conservation policy. The Conservation Security Act would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment program, the Conservation Security Program, to support and encourage conservation activities by farmers and ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive as much as $50,000 a year in-conservation payments by entering into 5- to 10-year agreements with USDA and carrying out eligible conservation practices. Moreover, the program is designed to encourage implementation of practices that address local conservation priorities. Payments are based on the number and types of practices and level of conservation carried out on their lands in agricultural production. Farmers and ranchers may choose to implement practices from one or more of the following three tiers of practices. In Tier I, participating farmers would adopt or maintain basic individual practices, including nutrient management, soil conservation, and wildlife habitat management on part or all of their operation. Tier I plans are for 5-year periods. Based on enrolled acreage, practices and the level of conservation, farmers or ranchers in Tier I would receive annual payments that could reach as much as $20,000. A one-time advance payment could be made of the greater of $1,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. Farmers or ranchers in Tier II would implement more extensive conservation practices on their working lands. They could choose from Tier I practices and practices II practices, including controlled rotational grazing, partial field practices like buffers strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration and wildlife habitat enhancement, for a period of 5 to 10 years, at the farmer's discretion. The practices adopted in Tier II must address at least one resource of concern (i.e. water quality, air quality, soil quality, wildlife habitat, etc.) for the entire operation. For adopting or maintaining Tier II practices, farmers or ranchers would receive up to $35,000 a year with access to a one-time advance payment of the greater of $2,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. To qualify under Tier III, farmers and ranchers would adopt a comprehensive set of conservation practices on the entire operation. The Practices would address all resources of concern on the operation, including air, land, water and wildlife. For carrying out a Tier III plan of practices, farmers and ranchers would receive up to $50,000 a year with access to a one-time advance payment of the greater of $3,000 or 20 percent of the annual payment. Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be totally voluntary. Farmers and ranchers would decide if they want to participate and to what extent they want to participate. The more conservation they do, the greater the payment. Many farmers are already using many of these practices, but they receive little or no financial support. This legislation changes that by rewarding those farmers and ranchers who have already implemented these practices through payments for maintaining them. In addition, the Conservation Security Act provides a strong incentive to go beyond the farm's current level of conservation. And it does so in a way that is compatible with our international trade obligations. The payments received under the Conservation Security Program would fit into the ``Green Box'' under the WTO Uruguay Round. Payments received under the Conservation Security Program are not linked to participation in commodity programs, and farmers don't have to participate in the Conservation Security Program to be eligible for commodity payments. Further, the Conservation Security Act, which focuses on land in production, complements and does not interfere with the existing conservation programs. A farmer or rancher may participate in these programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program and still participate in the Conservation Security Program. We need to support these and the other conservation programs, but to truly benefit agriculture and address the public's desire to enhance the environment, natural resources and wildlife habitat on agricultural land we must also address conservation needs on land in production. Farmers and ranchers across our country want to take actions to enhance the environment, but they need financial and technical assistance. The Conservation Security Act provides that needed assistance. Further, the Conservation Security Act was crafted to include opportunities for all producers nationwide, including producers of fruits, vegetables, speciality crops, row crops and livestock to participate in the Conservation Security Program. Our private lands are a national treasure, and conservation on farm and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as important as the production of abundant and safe food. The Conservation Security Act will help secure the economic future of our farmers and ranchers by providing them the means to increase their income while conserving our natural resources, the environment, and wildlife habitat for today and for future generations. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the people of Burma continue to suffer at the hands of the world's most brutal military dictatorship which cynically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council, (SPDC). Now more than ever, as a nation committed to internationally-recognized human rights and worker rights, democracy, and freedom, America must heed the call of the International Labor Organization, (ILO), and support stronger, coordinated multilateral actions against Burma's repressive regime. In the face of overwhelming evidence of continued, systematic use of forced labor, including forced child labor in Burma, we must do all we can to deny any material support to the military dictators who rule that country with an iron fist. Furthermore, there is no clear and tangible evidence that the latest informal, closed-door dialogue between the Burmese generals on one side and Aung San Suu Kyi and the other duly-elected leaders of the pro- democracy movement on the other side is bearing fruit. Therefore, we must demonstrate anew to the Burmese people our recognition of their nightmarish plight as well as our support for their noble struggle to achieve democratic governance. In 1997, a strong, bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted some sanctions and former President Clinton issued an Executive Order in response to a prolonged pattern of egregious human rights violations in Burma. At the heart of those measures is the existing prohibition on U.S. private companies making new investments in Burma's infrastructure. Many other national governments, as well as scores of city and State governments in the U.S. followed suit and adopted their own sanctions. Nevertheless, the ruling military junta in Burma has clung to power and continues to blatantly violate internationally-recognized human and worker rights. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Country Report on Burma cited ``credible reports that Burmese Army soldiers have committed rape, forced porterage, and extrajudicial killing.'' It referred to arbitrary arrests and the detention of at least 1300 political prisoners. The following excerpts from the most recent 2000 State Department Human Rights Country Report paint an even more disturbing reality: The Burmese Government's extremely poor human rights record and longstanding severe repression of its citizens continued during the year. Citizens continued to live subject at any time and without appeal to the arbitrary and sometimes brutal dictates of the military regime. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. There continued to be credible reports, particularly in ethnic minority areas, that security forces committed serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and rape. Disappearances continued, and members of the security forces tortured, beat, and otherwise abused prisoners and detainees. The judiciary is not independent and there is no effective rule of law. The Government continued to restrict worker rights, ban unions, and use forced labor for public works and for the support of military garrisons. Forced labor, including forced child labor, remains a serious problem. The use of forced labor as porters by the army--with attendant mistreatment, illness, and sometimes death--remain a common practice. In November, 2000 the International Labor Organization ILO Governing Body judged that the Government had not taken effective action to deal with `widespread and systematic' use of forced labor in the country and, for the first time in its history, called on all ILO members to apply sanctions to Burma. Child labor is also a problem and varies in severity depending on the country's region. Trafficking in persons, particularly in women and girls to Thailand and China, mostly for the purposes of prostitution, remain widespread. As of September, 2000, the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited more than 35,000 prisoners in at least 30 prisons, including more than 1,800 political prisoners. The ICRC also has begun tackling the problem of the roughly 36,000 persons in forced labor camps. The Government continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights, and security forces continued to monitor citizens' movements and communications systematically, to search homes without warrants, and to relocate persons forcibly without just compensation or due process. The SPDC continued to restrict severely freedom of speech, press assembly, and association. It has pressured many thousands of members to resign from the National League for Democracy, NLD, and closed party offices nationwide. Since 1990 the junta frequently prevented the NLD and other pro- democracy parties from conducting normal political activities. The junta recognizes the NLD as a legal entity; however, it refuses to accept the legal political status of key NLD party leaders, particularly the party's general secretary and 1991 Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, and restrict her activities severely through security measures and threats. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch/Asia reports that children from ethnic minorities are forced to work under inhumane conditions for the Burmese Army, lacking adequate medical care and sometimes dying from beatings. Last year, the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, in a chilling and alarming account, puts the number of child soldiers at 50,000, the highest in the world. Sadly, the children most vulnerable to recruitment into the military are orphans, street children, and the children of ethnic minorities. The same UN report also discusses the dire state of minorities in Burma who continue to be the targets of violence. Specifically, it details that the most frequently observed human rights violations aimed at minorities include extortion, rape, torture and other forms of physical abuse, forced labor, ``portering'', arbitrary arrests, long- term imprisonment, forcible relocation, and in some cases, extrajudicial executions. It also cites reports of massacres in the Shan state in the months of January, February, and May of 2000. A 1998 International Labor Organization Commission of Inquiry determined that forced labor in Burma is practiced in a ``widespread and systematic manner, with total disregard for the human dignity, safety, health and basic needs of the people.'' Last August, California District Court Judge Ronald Lew found in one high-profile court case ``ample evidence in the record linking the Burmese Government's use of forced labor to human rights abuses.'' In sum, the Burmese military junta continues to commit such horrific and appalling human rights and worker rights violations that we have no choice but to unite with other nations around the world and take stronger action. Even though the Burmese military junta has been terrorizing the 48 million people of Burma since it came to power in 1988 and has vowed to destroy the National League for Democracy, NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi, a remarkably courageous leader and very brave woman, manages to stand steadfast, like a living Statue of Liberty, in her undaunted quest and that of the Burmese people for democracy. We must never forget that she and her NLD colleagues won 392 of 485 seats in a democratic election held in 1990. But they have never been allowed to take office. Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and countless others are denied freedom of association, speech and movement on a daily basis. Last summer, she came under renewed threats and intimidation. For example, her vehicle was forced off the road last August by Burmese security forces when she tried to travel outside Rangoon to meet with her NLD colleagues. She sat in her car on the roadside for a week until a midnight raid of 200 riot police forced her back to her home and placed her under house arrest until September 14, 2000. Nevertheless, she tried again on September 21st, but she was prevented from boarding a train. The pathetic excuse from the authorities for abridging her freedom to travel within Burma, on that occasion, was that all tickets had been sold out. This Congress must answer anew the cry of the Burmese people and their courageous freedom-fighters. That is why I am introducing bipartisan legislation today, along with Senator Jessee Helms and several of our colleagues, to ban soaring imports from Burma, most of which are apparel and textiles sold by many brand-name American retailers. I am equally pleased that U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos from California is introducing the companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives this week. Most Americans think that a trade ban with Burma already exists. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I began investigating U.S. trade with Burma last summer in concern with the National Labor Committee, I was chocked and alarmed to discover skyrocketing U.S. apparel and textile imports for example. Last November I requested cable traffic between the U.S. Embassy in Burma and the U.S. State Department at Foggy Bottom to see exactly what officials in Washington, D.C. knew about soaring imports from Burma. It took nearly four months for me to get this unclassified cable traffic. But now I know why. Its contents are very troubling. It constitutes irrefutable evidence that current U.S. sanctions with Burma are far more apparent than real. They are far more bluster than bite. Consider the fact that the U.S. Government currently provides the Burmese military junta with very easy access to the U.S. apparel market because 95 percent of their exports are under no practical import restrictions at all. Due to rising imports of apparel and textiles from Burma alone, more than $400 million dollars are now flowing into the coffers of the Burmese military dictatorship. These ruthless military dictators and their drug-trafficking cohorts are spending this hard currency to purchase more guns from China and to buy loyalty among their troops to continue their policy of extreme repression and human cruelty. In other words, American consumers are unwittingly helping to sustain the repressive military junta's grip on power when buying travel and sports bags, women's underwear, jumpers, shorts, tank tops and towels made in the Burmese gulag. It is outrageous that many brand-name U.S. apparel companies such as FILA, Jordache, and Arrow Golf are making more and more of their clothes in the Burmese gulag where many workers earn as little as 7 cent/hour or $3.23/week and where production is non-stop--24 hours/day and 7 days/week. Make no mistake about it. U.S. apparel imports from Burma are providing the SPDC with a growing source of critically-needed hard currency because the military dictators directly own or have taken de facto control of production in many apparel and textile factories. They are further enriched by a 5 percent export tax. As I said earlier, this hard currency is used to finance the purchase of new weapons and ammunition from China and elsewhere, thus helping to underwrite the perpetuation of modern-day slavery, forced labor and forced child labor in Burma. But you don't have to take my work for it. U Maung Maung, the General Secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions in Burma, decried at a recent news conference in Washington, D.C., that ``the practice of purchasing garments made in Burma extends the continued exploitation of my people, including the use of slave labor by the regime, by further delaying the return of democratic government in Burma.'' At grave personal risk, he and other NLD leaders have disclosed the growing importance of exports to America and other foreign markets in helping sustain the Burmese military junta in power. Some may question whether a ban on Burmese trade, including apparel and textile imports, might not harm American companies and consumers? Nothing could be further from the truth. Currently, U.S. apparel and textile imports from Burma account for less than one-half of one percent of total U.S. apparel and textile imports. Others may assert that enactment of this legislation would violate WTO rules. Yes, Burma does belong to the WTO. Accordingly, the SPDC would have the standing technically to bring a formal complaint when this legislation is enacted. But our response to such a development should be bring it on. Let the Burmese generals argue before the WTO that they have the right to export products made by forced labor and child slaves and in flagrant violation of other internationally- recognized worker rights. This would clearly bring into focus the folly of writing rules for global trade that don't include enforceable worker rights, thus compelling workers in civilized trading nations to have to compete for their jobs de facto with forced labor in Burma. America must answer the clarion call of the ILO and take a stronger stand in solidarity with the Burmese people and in defense of universal human rights and worker rights in that besieged nation. A trade ban with Burma will reaffirm the belief of the American people that increased trade with foreign countries must promote respect for human rights and worker rights as well as property rights. It will also signal American readiness to join in a new and stronger course of coordinated, multilateral action that is designed to force the Burmese generals from power once and for all and to satisfy the yearning of the Burmese people for democratic, self-government. In closing, I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that four recent editorials from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe calling attention to the profound and prolonged suffering of the Burmese people and the need for stronger action in the U.S. and around the world also be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the forthrightness of my friend from Wyoming. That is exactly what I have been saying. That is the way it is written. The $1.2 billion that will be going out to the States this summer will not be going out.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator for his forthrightness. His answer is correct because that is what the Senator is doing. I point out to the Senator that the American Society of Civil Engineers has said that we need about $121 billion just to repair and modernize the schools we have right now. We will need $187 billion over the next 10 years. This is a $1.6 billion authorization. We do not know how much we can appropriate. We appropriated $1.2 billion last year. I do not know how much we can appropriate this next year. Certainly, we are not rushing headlong into repairing and modernizing schools at $1.2 billion. With the Senator's amendment, it is less than a snail's pace. We might get there in about 200 years. We cannot wait that long. Let us be clear about the Enzi amendment. There are some fatal flaws there. No. 1, the Enzi amendment takes away money already going out to the States, make no mistake about it. If Senators want to vote to take money away from State school construction--I have the list right here. My colleagues can look at it. This is what their States are going to receive this year, and the Enzi amendment takes it away. No. 2, the Senator is right; in my amendment, I do not handcuff the States. He is right. I do not prescribe every jot and tittle of exactly what they have to do. I trust them. We gave broad outlines. We said put this out under competitive grants to go to the lowest income, poorest districts that need the help the most. Then we reserve some funds for the highest poverty districts. That is it. We trust the States to make that decision. We had $28 million in my State of Iowa. The State department of education put it out for competitive grants. I have not heard one complaint, not one because the State believes it went through a very fair process and the neediest school districts got that money. No. 3, the Enzi amendment shifts money from education to the Department of Defense. Why would we want to do that? No. 4, the paperwork burden on local school districts, I submit, under the Enzi amendment will be more than anything they have ever filled out for title I or for anything else. How are you going to determine that 50 percent of your kids are below the poverty level? There is no census data, and yet you have to do that before you qualify. Next, it shifts the power from States and local governments to the Federal Government. I know the Senator does not intend to do that, but that is what really happens in this amendment. If you read the revolving loan fund part of the Senator's amendment, it takes money out of Indian schools in the future and puts it into the revolving fund. We do not need to be taking any more money out of Indian schools. I sum up by saying the Enzi amendment guts our commitment to school modernization which we made last year. If my colleagues vote for it, they are voting to strip education funds from their States. I will leave this list up during the vote and Senators can check how much money is going out to their States. There are poor school districts in every one of these States that need that money this year for fire and safety code violations. They need it this year. If you do not trust the States, if you can say, well, if we give money to the States, they will give it to the richest school districts, I do not think that is going to happen. I tend to trust the State departments of education. Under our guidelines, we say it has to go to the poorest schools and put out in competitive grants. Make no mistake about it; if any one of my colleagues votes for the Enzi amendment, they are voting to strip this money. With those fatal flaws, and with the fact we made an agreement last year--it was a bipartisan agreement; it was bicameral; it was hammered out with the White House; and we reached an agreement on how to do it and the money is going to be going out--I do not think we ought to stop that money from going out. It is $1.2 billion. We are not rushing headlong into something. I bet my colleagues will see, when this money goes out to the States this year, they are going to have a lot of support from their States, thanking you for helping fix up the poorest schools they have. I hope the Enzi amendment is not approved because we made this agreement last year, and we ought to stick by it for this year. In closing I want to share some comments from the officials with the Keokuk, IA, school district. This district has received two $100,000 grants to remedy fire code violations. The funds are being used to install fire alarms, replace doors with new fire-rated doors and make other repairs at an elementary school and at the high school so they meet fire and safety codes. The renovations are planned for this summer and next year. In a letter from Board President Dr. Wilson Davis, Jr., Superintendent Jane Babcock and Business Manager Kate Baldwin wrote; ``Completion of these building renovations will bring both of these student attendance centers into full compliance with all fire-safety codes. The availability of these funds have made this district goal a reality.'' Without the modest Federal investment, students in these two schools would continue to attend classes in buildings that do not meet State and local fire codes. Permitting such situations to continue is simply unacceptable. The schools in Keokuk are safer today because of a modest Federal investment. Our amendment will make it possible to make many more schools across the country safer for our children. So if you want safe schools for our kids, if you want them to attend modern, well-equipped schools, if you want schools that meet fire and safety codes, you should support this commonsense amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters of support.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given an additional 5 minutes to both sides.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I still have the floor. I ask my friend from Wyoming, I just heard the Senator say this is the authorization process and he did not want to interfere with the appropriations process. Again I ask the Senator, does not your amendment wipe out the appropriations we made last year? Does it not invade the appropriations process? We appropriated this money last year. If I am not mistaken, the Senator's amendment wipes that out. The Senator just said this was authorization, not appropriations, but if you read the amendment, it wipes out our appropriations. Am I reading it wrong? I yield to the Senator for a response. It says ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I ask the Senator, does not this invade the $1.2 billion we already appropriated? I will be glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. In fact, I will add one thing to that. What the Enzi amendment does this year is it takes away the $1.2 billion going out to States. That has already been appropriated. He wipes that out. Then on the revolving loan fund the Senator talked about, he says ``shall be made available to carry out this section for each fiscal year amounting to 20 percent of the total amount of the Federal budget.'' What all that means is that after this year we impact the money for impact aid and Indian schools. They are going to take 20 percent of that money and put it in the revolving loan fund. So here the Senator from Wyoming purports in his amendment that he wants to help Indian schools and he wants to help impact aid, but in the second part of the amendment he takes money out of those programs to put it into a revolving loan fund.

Mr. HARKIN. Impact aid, yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't seem to have page 13 for some reason. I have it now.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will.

Mr. HARKIN. Do we have time left? Zero? OK.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened as best I could to the presentation made by my friend from Wyoming on his amendment. Let's recap a little bit. As I said yesterday, we have been trying for some time to get money for school construction and repair to help beleaguered schools around the country. We did that last year in an agreement. I ask my friend from Wyoming if he knows this. But in last year's appropriations bill, there was an agreement hammered out on a bipartisan basis and a bicameral basis. It was signed off on the House side. We worked with Congressman Goodling, Congressman Porter, Congressman Obey; on the Senate side, Senator Specter and I, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy were all involved in the negotiations--and the White House. We came up with a program that provided $1.2 billion this year that would go out to States under broad guidelines to help them meet the needs of their poorest school districts in terms of meeting fire and safety code, renovation for technology, and 25 percent of the money was set aside to meet the needs of disabled students under IDEA. I didn't know this until I just read the Enzi amendment, but the Enzi amendment wipes out that $1.2 billion. This is a list of all the States that are going to get this money 2 months from now of the $1.2 billion that was appropriated for this year. The Enzi amendment is not prospective. It takes the $1.2 billion this year and reneges on what the Senate, the House, and the White House signed off on last year. That is eminently unfair. A lot of these school districts in the States already know the amount of money that they have applied for and that has been approved. The money hasn't gone out yet. It is going out the first of July. But they have applied for it, and they know what they are going to get. Now the Enzi amendment just wipes it out. You can see how much money some of the States will lose. The Enzi amendment will take a lot of this money and put it in the Department of Defense. I don't know if that makes any sense at all. Then there are all these hurdles that a State has to jump through before it can get any of the renovation money. I thought we Democrats were the ones always being accused of tying the hands of the States and telling them exactly what they had to do. Read the Enzi amendment. There are more hoops and more barriers and more hurdles and more paperwork the States will have to confront than anything I have seen offered in the Senate in a long time. For example, he says--just to illustrate how unfair the amendment will be--that before a school can qualify, 50 percent of the enrollment will have to come from families whose income does not exceed the poverty level. That is a public school. He says before a public school facility can get any of this construction or renovation money, 50 percent of the enrollment will have to be from families whose income does not exceed the poverty level. I ask the Senator from Wyoming how is he going to determine that. There is no way to determine that. I ask the Senator from Wyoming to please tell us how he is going to determine if a public school has 50 percent of enrollment from families whose income is below the poverty level. The only measure we have right now is from a school district and schools based upon free and reduced-priced lunches. That is based on 185 percent of poverty. It is based on school districts. I ask the Senator from Wyoming, how is a public school in your State, my State, Minnesota, Vermont, or any other State, going to show that 50 percent of its enrollment is from families whose income does not exceed the poverty level? As you say, ``as determined by annual census data published by the Department of Labor.'' The Department of Labor does not publish census data by schools. So this is a very poorly drafted amendment. I don't know what the author was trying to get at. I say to my friend from Wyoming that you cannot in any way determine how you are going to have 50-percent poverty from a school. That is the first hurdle that is impossible. Think of the paperwork. Think of what a school would have to go through to find out whether or not 50 percent of its enrollment are kids from families who do not exceed the poverty level. First of all, I think that would be impossible. Secondly--and here is something that is unfair--Mr. Enzi says the other hoop is that the school has to be located in a district in which the district's bonded indebtedness basically has reached or exceeded 90 percent of the debt limitation imposed upon school districts pursuant to State law. Well, what about a school district in a rural State in which there are a lot of elderly people who may not be able to bear the burden of property taxes, or they have property tax exemptions because of their age, and let's say they have 30 percent of their kids getting free and reduced-priced school lunches but their bonded indebtedness is only 15 percent. You are going to go out to that district with a heavily weighted population that is elderly, maybe rural, and you are going to say you have to raise your property taxes before you can qualify? How unfair is that, I ask you. Again, what kind of paperwork, what kind of State requirements are going to have to be set up to do that? So, again, I don't know what the Senator is trying to get at, but if he is trying to target it, it is not doing it. There is no way this can be done. The paperwork and the burden on the States in accounting for all this would be incredible. Again, he also says the Federal share of the cost of any project shall not exceed 50 percent. Well, again, why don't you leave that up to the States? In my amendment, I didn't tie the hands of the States and say here is exactly what you have to do. The Enzi amendment basically says: State, here is A, B, C, D--exactly what you have to do--and you can't do anything else. There may be some projects of an emergency nature. We have had them in Iowa, such as meeting fire and safety codes--things that may need to be done right away. Maybe they can't come up with a 50-percent match right away. But the Enzi amendment says, tough luck; you don't get any help. I understand there is a revolving loan fund also set up--a loan authority for loans to be made. Again, there are all kinds of hoops and paperwork requirements and findings that a State would have to face. The more I look at this amendment, the more I don't want to hear any more arguments from that side of the aisle about how Democrats are trying to tie the hands of States by specifying exactly what has to be done. If you want to learn about specifications, read the Enzi amendment. It is in here that for revolving loans it says--listen to this: With respect to a fiscal year, any State, to receive assistance on the revolving fund loan in this part of the bill, has to have four-tenths of a percent--in other words, they have to have less than four-tenths of a percent of the total amount available in the United States for all title I. So for a State to qualify for this revolving loan fund, that State has to get less than four-tenths of a percent of the entire amount in the United States. So I ask, why was it four-tenths? Why wasn't it five-tenths? Why wasn't it three-tenths? Why wasn't it 5.5? Why was four-tenths a magic number? I would like to know the answer to that question. I don't know why.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a response. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation designed to address the extensive problems that have been caused by the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, to make appropriate revisions to the reformulated gasoline, RFG, program in the Clean Air Act, and to increase greatly the use of renewable motor vehicle fuels. The bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the previous Congress. We have to get MTBE out of our gasoline. This is absolutely clear. Even in Iowa, where we are not required to have oxygenated fuels or RFG, a recent survey found a surprising level of water contamination with MTBE. So my legislation requires a phased reduction in the use of MTBE in motor fuel and then a prohibition of MTBE in fuel or fuel additives beginning three years after enactment. My legislation recognizes the benefits that have been provided by the oxygen content requirement in the reformulated gasoline program. Oxygen added to gasoline reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, toxic compounds and fine particulate matter. So my legislation continues the oxygen content requirement, but it would allow, in certain circumstances upon a proper showing, averaging of the oxygen content requirement over a period of time up to a year. The legislation also ensures that all health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program are maintained and improved, and includes very strong provisions to ensure that there is no backsliding in air quality and health benefits from cleaner burning reformulated gasoline. The petroleum companies would also be prohibited from taking the pollutants from gasoline in some areas and putting them back into gasoline in other areas of the country that are not subject to the more stringent air quality standards. Those are referred to as the anti- dumping protections. My bill places tighter restrictions on highly polluting aromatic and olefin content of reformulated gasoline. My legislation also recognizes the important role of renewable fuels in improving our environment, building energy security for out nation, and increasing farm income, economic growth and job creation, especially in rural areas. The legislation creates a national renewable content requirement for motor vehicle fuel. The requirement would not be a mandate that any particular user of gasoline or diesel fuel has to use the renewable fuel, but it would require the petroleum industry to ensure that renewable fuels make up a certain minimum percentage of the total U.S. supply of motor vehicle fuel, gasoline and diesel fuel. By 2011, that percentage would be about 5 percent on a volume basis, 3.3 percent based on energy content or approximately 10 billion gallons based on current estimates of gasoline and diesel consumption. Overall, this legislation will get MTBE out of gasoline, maintain and improve the air quality and health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program and the Clean Air Act, and put our nation on a solid path toward greater use of renewable fuels. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 525.