Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wonder why we are jumping the gun with this resolution when there are already other avenues open to repeal a rule which took a decade in the making. Why are we using a measure that would in a sense prevent any similar rule from even being issued unless Congress mandated it? It is an extreme measure. We should oppose it. It violates the original intent of the CRA. It violates the spirit of how we do business in the Senate with amendments and timely debate. The eight-page ergonomics rule is complaint based and flexible according to each workplace and job. It will save employers billions of dollars every year by preventing the debilitating injuries to their workers. As has been said, this is a preventive measure. What is wrong with prevention? We ought to be more involved in both preventing illnesses and in preventing injuries. But no. I understand the votes are on that side of the aisle, plus a few on this side, I understand, to overturn this. So what we will do is continue to spend billions and billions of dollars every year patching, fixing, and mending; spending billions of dollars in workers compensation, spending billions of dollars in Medicaid and perhaps Medicare later on to take care of people who have suffered musculoskeletal disorders, carpal tunnel syndrome, and repetitive motion disorders. We are penny wise and pound foolish around this place. Again, if businesses think this is onerous--and I have looked at the rule and it is not--we are going to have a big tax bill coming through here. Why don't we provide businesses tax relief if they have to comply with this, if they can show it costs money? I would be in favor of giving them whatever tax writeoff they need to comply with the ergonomics rule because again it would be money better spent than trying to patch, fix, and mend lives later on, not to mention the human suffering that comes along with this. This is an unwise move we are making in the Senate. I have been listening to the debate off and on during the day. Of course, I followed some of the reports in the media about this. I got to thinking to myself that if OSHA issued a rule today that mandated that workers in the construction industry had to wear hard hats, it would never get through the floor of the Senate. If they issued the rule to say that construction workers will wear hard hats, we would have opponents ready to repeal it. No one would think of going on a construction site without wearing a hard hat, least of all the workers, because both the industry and the laborers know how much it has done to save lives, save injuries. And, yes, save money. This is the same with ergonomics. Talk about shortsightedness. This is something that will save lives and save human suffering. It will prevent injuries, cost us less money, be good for business, good for America, and especially good for our working women. I guess the railroad train is on the track. They are riding the horse. As I understand it, they have the votes to repeal it. But I say it is a dark day for the working people of America, and especially a dark day for the working women in America who are going to continue to suffer in the workplace the kind of injuries that will cause them a lifetime of suffering and a lifetime of not being able to fully use their abilities in the workplace.

Mr. HARKIN. Not more than that.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I would be glad to withhold.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I add to what the Senator from Massachusetts just said, how about the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food Safety and Inspection Service that inspects all our meat plants and processing plants? These are not elected either, but we trust them to maintain a safe and wholesome food supply in America. I have been working on this ergonomics rule in the appropriations process since Elizabeth Dole first addressed the issue 10 years ago. One of the reasons I worked on it is that I have seen it firsthand. I have seen people I know, close friends of mine, who have suffered these kinds of injuries because of the kind of work they do. I remember what the former Republican Labor Secretary said when she first ordered the ergonomics studies. She said repetitive strain injuries are ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990s.'' She was right. We have study after study that shows 1.8 million of America's workers suffer from repetitive strain disorders each year; 600,000 of them suffer from injuries so serious they lose time from work. These injuries drain $45 billion to $50 billion a year in human and economic costs. Some employers have ergonomics programs in place because they are good employers and they are smart. They know what the bottom line is. They know ergonomics is a good business practice. But 60 percent of all general industry employees work in places that have not yet addressed ergonomics risk factors. Who are those workers? They are cashiers, nurses, nursing home attendants, cleaning staff, assembly workers in manufacturing and processing plants, computer users using keyboards on a daily basis, clerical staff, truck drivers, meat cutters--these are the people who are affected. Nearly a third of all serious job-related injuries are musculoskeletal disorders, and women workers are the hardest hit. Women make up 46 percent of the workforce, but in 1998 they accounted for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries and 71 percent of those reported carpal tunnel syndrome cases. So voting to repeal the ergonomics rules means turning our backs on America's working women who are trying to provide for their families. Wiping this rule out with no amendments and with limited debate is a blow to the working women of America. This bill before us, this measure we have before us that we are about to vote on today--make no mistake about it--is an anti-women bill, because it hits the women of America the hardest, and because they are the ones who are doing the kind of jobs that are most affected by repetitive motion injuries. That is what the Congressional Review Act would do. It would affect the women of this country. The Congressional Review Act resolution is an extreme measure that has never been used before. It passed in 1996. We all know what the congressional intent was, which was to repeal rules that were either hastily issued without scientific basis, or that clearly overreached an agency's mandate. That was the intent of it. The ergonomics rule doesn't fit into either category. It is based on hundreds of scientifically backed studies, including two major studies by the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, our Republican friends-- the opponents of this rule--kept calling for more studies of ergonomics and these repetitive stress disorders. What did we do? We authorized another National Academy of Sciences study in 1997. Then the Republicans wanted to delay the rule until the study came out. The study came out in January. Once again, the National Academy of Sciences found that there was scientific evidence that workplace exposures cause MSDs, and that the kinds of measures required by the OSHA's mandate are the most effective means to prevent these injuries. This rule falls under OSHA's mandate to protect America's workers from workplace injuries. We always want to have studies done. Usually I hear my Republican friends say we can't do this or that until we have a good scientific basis. That is fine. I think we should have a good scientific basis for what we do. Here we have the scientific study. We have hundreds of scientific studies that have found the same thing. Now--with this measure--they're saying the studies don't matter. I don't understand why we're even using this extreme measure that we have before us when opponents of ergonomics have two other avenues they can use to modify or even repeal the rule. They could request this administration--the Bush administration --to review the rule to modify or even repeal it. Of course, they also have the court system. They have already filed 31 petitions contesting the rule in the U.S. Circuit Court in Washington, DC.

Mr. HARKIN. Right.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when I heard that my friend, Alan Cranston, passed away this New Year's Eve, I couldn't quite believe it. I remember Alan as a man in a constant state of motion, always pressing on for the causes he cared for, plotting the next steps, pondering how he could do more. It is hard to reconcile the finality of death with the endless, focused energy that defined his life. Alan's record of service spans the better part of the twentieth century. He was a journalist who covered World War II, an author who warned Americans about the threat of Hitler, a leader of an organization that opposed discrimination against immigrants, long before that was fashionable. He revived the California Democratic party in the 1950's, was the California state controller in the 1960's, and served his first term in the United States Senate in the 1970's. He was a Senator for 24 years, including seven consecutive terms as Democratic whip, and he even made a run for the Presidency in 1984. And since his retirement from the Senate in 1993, Alan had dedicated himself to the cause he cared about most; eliminating nuclear weapons. If you didn't know Alan, his impressive list of accomplishments might lead you to think that he must have been a man of great showmanship and obvious charisma. But that wasn't Alan. Alan believed in the philosophy of Lao-tzu: ``A leader is best when people barely know that he exists. But of a good leader, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will all say, `We did this ourselves.' '' Accordingly, Alan did a lot of his work behind the scenes. He had neither the time nor the patience for back-slapping and schmoozing: he liked to cut to the chase, let you know what was what, and move on to the next thing. Alan was never loud or arrogant or flashy. He didn't have to be. His authority came from a force deeper than personality. It came from his conscience. The anti-war activist, Father Daniel Berrigan, once talked about the danger of ``verbalizing . . . moral impulses out of existence.'' That was never within the realm of possibility for Alan. Whether he was standing up for veterans, working to save millions of acres of desert and wilderness, or speaking out for nuclear disarmament, Alan steadfastly followed his conscience, even when it led him to the uncharted paths or difficult places where no one else would go. I don't know whether it was the result of this active conscience or his fierce intellect or some combination of the two, but Alan had this extraordinary prescience, this ability to predict with startling accuracy what the future would bring. He understood the threat of Adolf Hitler long before many others, and he worked to warn us before it was too late. He fought discrimination against immigrants, long before most of us realized that was the right thing to do. He spoke out about nuclear weapons long before the disarmament movement took root in the popular imagination. And he believed in the notion of uniform world law decades before the rise of the global age. In fact, many decades ago, he was the leader of the World Federalist Association, a group dedicated to the idea of establishing a uniform world law. Back then, the WFA must have seemed like a somewhat eccentric organization, oddly out of synch with the times. But it was vintage Alan, just another manifestation of his profound idealism. Alan really believed that people of all different nationalities and races and ethnicities could rise to meet the standard of a just rule of law. Alan once said of nuclear deterrence: ``This may have been necessary during the cold war; it is not necessary forever. It is not acceptable forever. I say it is unworthy of our nation, unworthy of any nation; it is unworthy of civilization.'' Alan had the highest hopes for our world. We owe it to him to try to live up to them and to carry out his legacy of peace in the new millennium he did not live to see. In conclusion, I ask that a recent article from Roll Call on Alan Cranston by Daniel Perry appear in the Record at the end of my remarks. Dan Perry, a former staffer for Alan Cranston, is a leader in his own right. For years he has been on the forefront of aging and health policy as head of the Alliance for Aging Research. His remarks reflect his deep admiration for Senator Cranston and his commitment to the Senator's lofty ideals. The article is as follows: [From Roll Call, Jan. 4, 2001] Cranston Legacy Serves as Model for Members of the 107th Congress (By Daniel Perry) The sharply divided 107th Congress would do well to ponder the quiet but enduringly effective political skills of the late Sen. Alan Cranston (D) of California. His 24-year Senate career, during tumultuous and partisan times, showed that strong beliefs make good politics, but success begins with respecting the motives and sincerity of others, including your opponents. Cranston's sudden death, just hours before the first day of 2001, ended a life devoted to issues about which he was passionate: International peace and arms control, human rights and protection of the environment. For this Californian the quest for high public office--even the United States Senate--was never a simple pursuit of power nor an end in itself. Politics and policy were the means by which he could help make the human passage on earth fairer, safer and more serene. His commitment to halting future use of nuclear weapons began when he was introduced to Albert Einstein in 1946. He was still working tirelessly toward that goal when he died, at age 86, eight years after he left the Senate. In the shorthand of the obituary writer, Cranston is remembered for winning four Senate elections, serving seven consecutive terms as Democratic Whip, for having run for president as the champion of a nuclear freeze and for being tarred by the so-called Keating Five scandal. While all true, that doesn't begin to describe a political career of amazing productivity and accomplishment, showing just how much one person quietly can do to shape his or her times. By one count, there were 2,500 tallies in the Senate between 1969 and 1989 that were decided by fewer than five votes, and often by a single vote. Cranston was often a crucial player, not only for his vote alone but as a behind- the-scene strategist, head counter, marshaler of forces and shrewd compromiser who always lived to fight another day. He was frequently one-half of various Senate odd-couple pairings, meshing his principles with pragmatism. He teamed with conservative Senators such as Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) to improve veterans programs, Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) on public housing measures and the legendary Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) to protect press freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment. Cranston was liberal and an idealist to the core, but never an ideologue or blindly partisan. That balance enabled him to become one of the most durable and successful California politicians of the 20th century. He was elected six times to statewide office from California. Representing the West Coast megastate in the Senate meant skillfully balancing myriad insistent and often conflicting home-state interests. Even as California changed politically and demographically, Cranston managed to steer a delicate course between the state's giant agribusiness interests and those of consumers, family farmers and farm workers; he weighed the claims of home builders and growing communities against the need to preserve open spaces and wildlife habitats. Amazingly, he helped end the Vietnam War and was a major figure in the nation's arms control and peace movements, even as he effectively represented the epicenter of the nation's defense and aerospace industries. It is a measure of the man that he was able to separate the warriors of Vietnam from the war itself. From 1969 to 1992 all legislation concerning America's veterans bore his stamp, especially measures improving health care and mental health services for those who fought in the nation's most unpopular war. Teaming up with the late Rep. Phillip Burton (D) of San Francisco on environmental issues, the two Californians managed to place under federal protection as much acreage as all the national park lands created earlier in the 20th century combined. Today there is a catalog of thousands of bills and amendments he personally authored affecting virtually every aspect of national life: civil rights, adoption and foster care reform, wild rivers, research to improve aging and longevity, workplace safety, emergency medical services and much more. He lived by the maxim that a leader can accomplish great things if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. The Cranston style has not been much in evidence in Washington during recent years. However, Members in the 107th Congress--where many a cause will be determined by one or very few votes--would do well to consider the lessons of his enabling career. If they study the Cranston legacy and seek to emulate it, the nation and the world will be better for it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that I believe will help address a critical need for Iowa state and local law enforcement. These bills, which would provide needed training assistance in narcotics as well as overall law enforcement, are based on my conversations with Iowa law enforcement officials last summer. The National Guard Counter Drug Schools Act, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, would create a new counterdrug training school at Camp Dodge in Johnston, Iowa that law enforcement can use for the specialized training on drug investigations, including those cases that involve methamphetamine. The National Guard has four of these centers in Florida, Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi. But, Senator Grassley and I recognized the need for one in the Midwest--to help state and local law enforcement in their efforts to reduce the supply and demand of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs. The second one, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, would focus on rural law enforcement--and would provide new training and assistance resources for small town sheriff and police departments. Right now, rural law enforcement officers in Iowa and across the country have limited resources where they can get continued training for general investigations, the latest in forensics technology and technical assistance. One place where many of them go is the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas. But, these small departments need something that's closer to home. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would bring the Center closer to these officers by expanding the center into branches in eight regions across the country. I believe these two bills will help ensure that rural law enforcement agencies receive the training and assistance they need to make their communities safer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that I believe will help address a critical need for Iowa state and local law enforcement. These bills, which would provide needed training assistance in narcotics as well as overall law enforcement, are based on my conversations with Iowa law enforcement officials last summer. The National Guard Counter Drug Schools Act, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, would create a new counterdrug training school at Camp Dodge in Johnston, Iowa that law enforcement can use for the specialized training on drug investigations, including those cases that involve methamphetamine. The National Guard has four of these centers in Florida, Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi. But, Senator Grassley and I recognized the need for one in the Midwest--to help state and local law enforcement in their efforts to reduce the supply and demand of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs. The second one, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, would focus on rural law enforcement--and would provide new training and assistance resources for small town sheriff and police departments. Right now, rural law enforcement officers in Iowa and across the country have limited resources where they can get continued training for general investigations, the latest in forensics technology and technical assistance. One place where many of them go is the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas. But, these small departments need something that's closer to home. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would bring the Center closer to these officers by expanding the center into branches in eight regions across the country. I believe these two bills will help ensure that rural law enforcement agencies receive the training and assistance they need to make their communities safer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Feingold, Reed, Leahy, Kennedy, and Wellstone in introducing legislation calling for the establishment of an International War Crimes Tribunal for East Timor. We recently passed the first anniversary of the date when a Special United Nations of Commission of Inquiry into the Violence and Destruction in East Timor first recommended this course of action. As many of us know, back in 1999, after many years of military occupation, the people of East Timor were suddenly and brutally attacked immediately after they peacefully cast their overwhelming vote for national independence. At least 1,000 people were murdered and thousands more were injured. 500,000 people were displaced. And scores of communities and villages in East Timor were destroyed by roving bands of militias and paramilitary organizations. These militias and paramilitary organizations were trained and armed by Indonesian military officers and personnel along with the Indonesian civilian police. Around this time last year, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged us to give the Government of Indonesia time to find and punish these guilty individuals in Indonesia and to demonstrate their cooperation on related criminal investigations and prosecutions with authorities in East Timor and the United Nations Transition Authority in East Timor (UNTAET). But as I stand here today, not a single individual has been charged or brought to trial in Indonesia for the wave of violence, murder, rape, and terror inflicted on the people of East Timor in preparation for and the conduct of the 1999 referendum and its aftermath. A number of militia leaders were implicated in these heinous crimes--but they have never been formally charged and brought to trial in Indonesia or East Timor. They continue to operate with impunity in West Timor and throughout Indonesia. This is unconscionable. We have shown nothing but patience, and they have simply done nothing. The time for sitting back and waiting is over, and we must now take decisive and concrete steps to ensure that justice is done. This legislation I am introducing today is carefully modeled after similar legislation that established the International War Crimes Tribunals for Iraq, the Balkans, and Rwanda. It consists of three parts: First, it calls upon the Bush Administration to endorse and support the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute all individuals who are responsible for egregious human rights abuses in East Timor. These abuses include crimes against humanity in East Timor, including systematic murder, rape, and terrorism, the unlawful use of force, and crimes against United Nations personnel deployed in East Timor and in the refugee camps of West Timor. Second, it calls upon the Bush Administration to direct pertinent U.S. Government agencies to begin collecting and organizing the necessary evidence and information needed to indict and prosecute these war criminals before an international tribunal. Finally, the legislation calls upon the Bush Administration to work actively and urgently within the international community to adopt a UN Security Council resolution establishing an international tribunal on East Timor. In the course of human events, Mr. President, wherever and whenever conflict has resulted in great bloodshed, human suffering, and destruction, there has been no real peace established without real justice. The people of East Timor deserve peace--and to establish peace, we must first seek justice.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Genetic Non-discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act'' with Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues. This bill would bring our nondiscrimination policies into the 21st century. Genetic discrimination is a terribly important issue and one that I have been following for quite some time now. My interest started in the late 1980s when I was first involved in the effort to fund the Human Genome Project at NIH. Looking back over the past ten years, this was one of the best investments our country has ever made. The advances in the study of the human gene are mind-boggling. Last year, the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics announced that scientists had mapped the entire human genome. Just yesterday, these same scientists reported the probable number of human genes at 30,000 to 40,000 (only twice as many genes as your run-of-the-mill roundworm). The impact of these discoveries will go far beyond the laboratory. The mapping of the human genome will mean enormous gains in science and the provision of health care. The identification of a number of disease-related genes has already provided scientists with important new tools for understanding the underlying mechanisms for many illnesses. And genomic technologies have the potential to lead to better diagnosis and treatment, and, ultimately, the prevention and cure of many diseases and disabilities. However, without genetic discrimination protections, people will be deterred from using genetic technologies that detect and prevent the onset of life-threatening diseases. Discrimination in health insurance and employment, and the fear of potential discrimination, threaten our ability to conduct the very research we need to understand, treat, and prevent genetic disease. Moreover, discrimination--and the fear of discrimination--threaten our ability to use new genetic technologies to improve human health. As a result, our rapid, scientific progress could be rendered meaningless for the every day American. Let me give you just a few examples: In the early 1970's some insurance companies denied coverage and some employers denied jobs to African-Americans who were identified as carriers for sickle-cell anemia, even though they were healthy and would never develop the disease. More recently, in a survey of people in families with genetic disorders, 22 percent indicated that they, or a member of their family, had been refused health insurance on the basis of their genetic information. And a number of researchers have been unable to get individuals to participate in cancer genetics research. Fear of discrimination is cited as the reason why. But this is more than just about numbers and anonymous individuals, it's about real people--including my own family. As many of you know, both my sisters died from breast cancer. And other members of my family might be at risk. Should I counsel them to get tested for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations? Should I counsel them to disclose our family history to their health care providers? Right now, I'm torn. I know that if my family is to have access to the best available interventions and preventive care, they should get tested, and they should disclose our family's medical history to their physicians. But, conversely, if they are to get any health care at all, they must have access to health insurance. Without strong protections against discrimination, access to health insurance is currently in question. In 1995, I introduced an amendment during the mark-up of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. My amendment clarified that group health plans could not establish eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements based on genetic information. The amendment became part of the manager's package that went to the floor, and it ultimately became law. HIPAA is a good first step. We should be proud of that legislation. Yet if our goal is to ensure that individuals have access to health insurance coverage and to employment opportunities--regardless of their genetic makeup--we must ensure that they are protected against discrimination on the basis of their genetic makeup. Our proposed legislation offers such protections. Let me describe them in brief: First, this legislation prohibits insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of protected genetic information. It is essential to prohibit discrimination both at work and in health insurance coverage. If we only prohibit discrimination in the insurance context, employers who are worried about future increased medical costs or increased sick time will simply not hire individuals who have a genetic predisposition to a particular disease. Second, under our proposal, health insurance companies are prohibited from disclosing genetic information to other insurance companies, industry-wide data banks, and employers. If we really want to prevent discrimination, we should not let genetic information get into the wrong hands in the first place. Finally, if protections against genetic discrimination are to have teeth, we must include strong penalties and remedies to deter employers and insurers from discriminating in the first place. This bill will ensure that every American will enjoy the latest advances in scientific research and health care delivery, without fear of retribution on the basis of their sensitive genetic information. All of us should be concerned about this issue, because all of us have genetic information that could be used against us. As we move into the new millennium, everyone should enjoy the benefits of 21st century technologies--and not be harmed by 21st century discrimination. I applaud the commitment of my fellow co-sponsors on this important issue and look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass federal legislation that will prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace and in health insurance.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Genetic Non-discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act'' with Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues. This bill would bring our nondiscrimination policies into the 21st century. Genetic discrimination is a terribly important issue and one that I have been following for quite some time now. My interest started in the late 1980s when I was first involved in the effort to fund the Human Genome Project at NIH. Looking back over the past ten years, this was one of the best investments our country has ever made. The advances in the study of the human gene are mind-boggling. Last year, the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics announced that scientists had mapped the entire human genome. Just yesterday, these same scientists reported the probable number of human genes at 30,000 to 40,000 (only twice as many genes as your run-of-the-mill roundworm). The impact of these discoveries will go far beyond the laboratory. The mapping of the human genome will mean enormous gains in science and the provision of health care. The identification of a number of disease-related genes has already provided scientists with important new tools for understanding the underlying mechanisms for many illnesses. And genomic technologies have the potential to lead to better diagnosis and treatment, and, ultimately, the prevention and cure of many diseases and disabilities. However, without genetic discrimination protections, people will be deterred from using genetic technologies that detect and prevent the onset of life-threatening diseases. Discrimination in health insurance and employment, and the fear of potential discrimination, threaten our ability to conduct the very research we need to understand, treat, and prevent genetic disease. Moreover, discrimination--and the fear of discrimination--threaten our ability to use new genetic technologies to improve human health. As a result, our rapid, scientific progress could be rendered meaningless for the every day American. Let me give you just a few examples: In the early 1970's some insurance companies denied coverage and some employers denied jobs to African-Americans who were identified as carriers for sickle-cell anemia, even though they were healthy and would never develop the disease. More recently, in a survey of people in families with genetic disorders, 22 percent indicated that they, or a member of their family, had been refused health insurance on the basis of their genetic information. And a number of researchers have been unable to get individuals to participate in cancer genetics research. Fear of discrimination is cited as the reason why. But this is more than just about numbers and anonymous individuals, it's about real people--including my own family. As many of you know, both my sisters died from breast cancer. And other members of my family might be at risk. Should I counsel them to get tested for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations? Should I counsel them to disclose our family history to their health care providers? Right now, I'm torn. I know that if my family is to have access to the best available interventions and preventive care, they should get tested, and they should disclose our family's medical history to their physicians. But, conversely, if they are to get any health care at all, they must have access to health insurance. Without strong protections against discrimination, access to health insurance is currently in question. In 1995, I introduced an amendment during the mark-up of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. My amendment clarified that group health plans could not establish eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements based on genetic information. The amendment became part of the manager's package that went to the floor, and it ultimately became law. HIPAA is a good first step. We should be proud of that legislation. Yet if our goal is to ensure that individuals have access to health insurance coverage and to employment opportunities--regardless of their genetic makeup--we must ensure that they are protected against discrimination on the basis of their genetic makeup. Our proposed legislation offers such protections. Let me describe them in brief: First, this legislation prohibits insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of protected genetic information. It is essential to prohibit discrimination both at work and in health insurance coverage. If we only prohibit discrimination in the insurance context, employers who are worried about future increased medical costs or increased sick time will simply not hire individuals who have a genetic predisposition to a particular disease. Second, under our proposal, health insurance companies are prohibited from disclosing genetic information to other insurance companies, industry-wide data banks, and employers. If we really want to prevent discrimination, we should not let genetic information get into the wrong hands in the first place. Finally, if protections against genetic discrimination are to have teeth, we must include strong penalties and remedies to deter employers and insurers from discriminating in the first place. This bill will ensure that every American will enjoy the latest advances in scientific research and health care delivery, without fear of retribution on the basis of their sensitive genetic information. All of us should be concerned about this issue, because all of us have genetic information that could be used against us. As we move into the new millennium, everyone should enjoy the benefits of 21st century technologies--and not be harmed by 21st century discrimination. I applaud the commitment of my fellow co-sponsors on this important issue and look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass federal legislation that will prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace and in health insurance.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Home Energy Assistance Tax Act with Senators Durbin, Clinton, Dorgan, and Kennedy. The rising cost of utility bills has reached near crisis proportions in my home state and in states across this country. Right now, millions of Americans are being buried by massive home heating bills. And if we don't do something soon, a lot of people are going to be left out in the cold. This winter has been an especially cold one. As a result, demand for natural gas is way up, and prices have skyrocketed. In the past few months, I've gotten phone calls and letters from people all across Iowa telling me about their outrageous heating bills. A man in West Des Moines told me that while his gas bill was $189.87 in December--it jumped to $601.67 in January. A couple in Duncombe said that their $79 gas bill in December was followed by a $330 gas bill in January--even though they never paid more than $120 a month last year. And a man from Merrill told me that his bill was $575 this month and $475 last month, even though it was never higher than $280 last year. This man and his wife receive $1,300 a month for Social Security-- $100 of which goes for Medicare and $300 for Medicare supplement. After food and other expenses, they just don't have enough left to pay their utility bills. Heating bills this high force people to make the kind of sacrifices that no one should have to make. A recent survey showed that 20 percent of the Iowa residents who asked for LIHEAP assistance went without medical care because of high heating bills. 12.3 percent went without food. 7.4 percent didn't pay their rent or make their house payment. The bottom line here is that people are struggling, and they need our help to keep from freezing in their homes this winter. That's why I believe that we should take the following three steps immediately: First, we've got to provide more emergency funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Many low income and elderly people simply cannot afford $300 and $400 and $500 heating bills. We also need to increase the income limits on who can receive LIHEAP assistance. Second, bills have gotten so high that even middle income Americans are struggling--we've got to find a way to help them pay their energy utility bills as well. That's why I am introducing the Home Energy Assistance Tax Act to give taxpayers a 50 percent tax credit for the difference between their utility bills this winter compared to last winter. This credit will also cover the estimated increased costs of heating a home from heating oil or propane. It will not cover the first $100 in increased costs. It will not benefit high-income tax-payers. The credit is phased out for those making more than $100,000. However, this credit will be refundable so that people with low incomes could still receive it. One key problem with using the tax code to provide assistance is that people do not normally see its benefit until after they file their next tax return and receive a refund. However, taxpayers can reduce their payroll withholding by the amount of this credit and get the money quickly. So this credit can provide quick and meaningful help. The bill--much like a measure introduced by Senator Bob Smith--will also propose tax credits for energy efficient new homes and energy efficient heating, air conditioning and water-heating appliances. It will also provide tax benefits for similar energy conservation by businesses. Energy efficiency is crucial for quelling our home heating crisis. By helping people conserve energy, we reduce consumption and help them lower their heating bills. And when we reduce the demand that has driven prices up, we restore balance to the market and lower prices for everyone. Also, when we use less fuel, we create less air pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign sources. So energy efficiency tax credits are a win-win-win solution. I am also joining Senator Kerry in introducing a separate bill today that will provide some relief for small business owners by allowing them to acquire low interest emergency. I am, of course, fully aware that high gas prices have spurred new drilling which should eventually increase supply and bring prices back down. But this could take years. People are being hammered by high heating bills right now, and we need to act now to help our constituents. No one should be left out in the cold this winter. I hope that we can come together in the next few weeks and pass important legislation to help keep America warm. I urge that the Senate consider and pass this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Home Energy Assistance Tax Act with Senators Durbin, Clinton, Dorgan, and Kennedy. The rising cost of utility bills has reached near crisis proportions in my home state and in states across this country. Right now, millions of Americans are being buried by massive home heating bills. And if we don't do something soon, a lot of people are going to be left out in the cold. This winter has been an especially cold one. As a result, demand for natural gas is way up, and prices have skyrocketed. In the past few months, I've gotten phone calls and letters from people all across Iowa telling me about their outrageous heating bills. A man in West Des Moines told me that while his gas bill was $189.87 in December--it jumped to $601.67 in January. A couple in Duncombe said that their $79 gas bill in December was followed by a $330 gas bill in January--even though they never paid more than $120 a month last year. And a man from Merrill told me that his bill was $575 this month and $475 last month, even though it was never higher than $280 last year. This man and his wife receive $1,300 a month for Social Security-- $100 of which goes for Medicare and $300 for Medicare supplement. After food and other expenses, they just don't have enough left to pay their utility bills. Heating bills this high force people to make the kind of sacrifices that no one should have to make. A recent survey showed that 20 percent of the Iowa residents who asked for LIHEAP assistance went without medical care because of high heating bills. 12.3 percent went without food. 7.4 percent didn't pay their rent or make their house payment. The bottom line here is that people are struggling, and they need our help to keep from freezing in their homes this winter. That's why I believe that we should take the following three steps immediately: First, we've got to provide more emergency funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Many low income and elderly people simply cannot afford $300 and $400 and $500 heating bills. We also need to increase the income limits on who can receive LIHEAP assistance. Second, bills have gotten so high that even middle income Americans are struggling--we've got to find a way to help them pay their energy utility bills as well. That's why I am introducing the Home Energy Assistance Tax Act to give taxpayers a 50 percent tax credit for the difference between their utility bills this winter compared to last winter. This credit will also cover the estimated increased costs of heating a home from heating oil or propane. It will not cover the first $100 in increased costs. It will not benefit high-income tax-payers. The credit is phased out for those making more than $100,000. However, this credit will be refundable so that people with low incomes could still receive it. One key problem with using the tax code to provide assistance is that people do not normally see its benefit until after they file their next tax return and receive a refund. However, taxpayers can reduce their payroll withholding by the amount of this credit and get the money quickly. So this credit can provide quick and meaningful help. The bill--much like a measure introduced by Senator Bob Smith--will also propose tax credits for energy efficient new homes and energy efficient heating, air conditioning and water-heating appliances. It will also provide tax benefits for similar energy conservation by businesses. Energy efficiency is crucial for quelling our home heating crisis. By helping people conserve energy, we reduce consumption and help them lower their heating bills. And when we reduce the demand that has driven prices up, we restore balance to the market and lower prices for everyone. Also, when we use less fuel, we create less air pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign sources. So energy efficiency tax credits are a win-win-win solution. I am also joining Senator Kerry in introducing a separate bill today that will provide some relief for small business owners by allowing them to acquire low interest emergency. I am, of course, fully aware that high gas prices have spurred new drilling which should eventually increase supply and bring prices back down. But this could take years. People are being hammered by high heating bills right now, and we need to act now to help our constituents. No one should be left out in the cold this winter. I hope that we can come together in the next few weeks and pass important legislation to help keep America warm. I urge that the Senate consider and pass this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senator Lugar, legislation that would ensure that there is in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice a position with the primary responsibility of providing advice and assistance to further effective enforcement of the antitrust laws in the food and agricultural sectors of our economy. As so many of my colleagues understand, we are in a period of very rapid change in the economic structure of agriculture and of our food system from the farm on through retail distribution. Those changes include sweeping consolidation and greatly increased economic concentration in many segments of our nation's food and agriculture system that have profoundly affected agricultural producers and rural communities and raised serious questions about impacts on consumers. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that our nation's antitrust laws are fully enforced during this time of rapid change in our food and agriculture system. This is the same legislation as Senator Lugar and I introduced late in 1999. Following that introduction, the Clinton Administration did appoint a person to fill the position required by this legislation. While that action obviated the necessity of enacting the legislation at that time, we do not know for certain what the present or future administrations may do in assigning personnel at the Department of Justice to antitrust enforcement in agriculture. This bill is an important safeguard to ensure that we have a person who is devoted full-time at Justice to the critical task of enforcing our antitrust laws in the food and agriculture sector. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senator Lugar, legislation that would ensure that there is in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice a position with the primary responsibility of providing advice and assistance to further effective enforcement of the antitrust laws in the food and agricultural sectors of our economy. As so many of my colleagues understand, we are in a period of very rapid change in the economic structure of agriculture and of our food system from the farm on through retail distribution. Those changes include sweeping consolidation and greatly increased economic concentration in many segments of our nation's food and agriculture system that have profoundly affected agricultural producers and rural communities and raised serious questions about impacts on consumers. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that our nation's antitrust laws are fully enforced during this time of rapid change in our food and agriculture system. This is the same legislation as Senator Lugar and I introduced late in 1999. Following that introduction, the Clinton Administration did appoint a person to fill the position required by this legislation. While that action obviated the necessity of enacting the legislation at that time, we do not know for certain what the present or future administrations may do in assigning personnel at the Department of Justice to antitrust enforcement in agriculture. This bill is an important safeguard to ensure that we have a person who is devoted full-time at Justice to the critical task of enforcing our antitrust laws in the food and agriculture sector. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just under 3 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, John Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Lincoln Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. We are re- introducing the first bipartisan Senate bill to restore the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco. We hope the introduction of this bill is the beginning of a bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed. The need is clear. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat to public health in the United States. Study after study has shown how the tobacco industry continues to successfully target our children. In a survey done by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33 percent of adults. And 77 percent of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes. This is why every day another 3000 kids in this country become regular smokers. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There is no question. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted. The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court last year, were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment in the future of our kids. They also provided consumers with critical protections against false advertising and health claims by tobacco manufacturers. Tobacco companies are making harm reduction claims about new products with no real independent examination or oversight. This deceptive, self-interested behavior is not part of a new pattern. The history of tobacco companies is rife with examples of deceptive practices designed to addict both adults and children with their harmful products. Our bill will ensure that this type of behavior is stopped. Our legislation re-affirms the FDA's authority over tobacco products. It classifies nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery devices. It allows FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. Companies will be prevented from making claims of reduced risk unless they can show scientific evidence their product is actually safer. By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation also allows for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It provides needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It also includes sensible advertising limits to reduce teen access to tobacco. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I hope we can work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move this important issue forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just under 3 years ago, on March 31, 1998, Senators Harkin, John Chafee and Graham teamed up to introduce the first comprehensive bipartisan legislation to reduce teen smoking. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senators Harkin, Lincoln Chafee and Graham are teaming up again with the same goal. We are re- introducing the first bipartisan Senate bill to restore the Food and Drug Administration's authority to protect our kids from tobacco. We hope the introduction of this bill is the beginning of a bipartisan push to get this type of common sense legislation passed. The need is clear. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recognized, tobacco use among children and adolescents is probably the single most significant threat to public health in the United States. Study after study has shown how the tobacco industry continues to successfully target our children. In a survey done by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, seventy-three percent of teens reported seeing tobacco advertising in the previous two weeks, compared to only 33 percent of adults. And 77 percent of teens say it is easy for kids to buy cigarettes. This is why every day another 3000 kids in this country become regular smokers. And that is why cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high. There is no question. Nicotine is an addictive product and cigarettes kill. Even the tobacco companies are starting to admit it. In fact, Big Tobacco has known this for so long, they deliberately manipulate the nicotine in cigarettes to get more people addicted. The FDA regulations, struck down by the Supreme Court last year, were about stopping kids from smoking. These regulations were an investment in the future of our kids. They also provided consumers with critical protections against false advertising and health claims by tobacco manufacturers. Tobacco companies are making harm reduction claims about new products with no real independent examination or oversight. This deceptive, self-interested behavior is not part of a new pattern. The history of tobacco companies is rife with examples of deceptive practices designed to addict both adults and children with their harmful products. Our bill will ensure that this type of behavior is stopped. Our legislation re-affirms the FDA's authority over tobacco products. It classifies nicotine as a drug and tobacco products as drug delivery devices. It allows FDA to implement a ``public health'' standard in its review and regulation of tobacco products. Companies will be prevented from making claims of reduced risk unless they can show scientific evidence their product is actually safer. By codifying FDA's regulation of 1996, our legislation also allows for continuation of the critically important youth ID checks. It provides needed youth access restrictions such as requiring tobacco products to be kept behind store counters and ban vending machines. It also includes sensible advertising limits to reduce teen access to tobacco. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I hope we can work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move this important issue forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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, after reviewing his testimony before the Judiciary Committee and studying his long public record, I cannot support the nomination of John Ashcroft to be United States Attorney General. This is not an easy decision for any of us. We have all served in this body with former Senator Ashcroft. I cannot say that I was a personal friend of his. We never associated socially or anything like that, but I did have dealings with Senator Ashcroft, as we all do around here, on matters of legislative importance. Quite frankly, in my dealings with him, I always found him to be courteous to me and my staff. I found that we could work together even though we did not have the same views, perhaps, on certain pieces of legislation. I found that we worked together in the spirit of compromise here on the Senate floor. When John Ashcroft's name was first announced as the nominee for Attorney General, I, of course, thought to myself, he certainly would not have been my first choice, but then again George Bush was not my first choice for President. But I recognized that Presidents should have fairly large leeway to have the people around them they want. But, again, we also have an obligation, a constitutional obligation, in the advise and consent clause in the U.S. Constitution to look over those individuals, to give careful scrutiny to those individuals, to make sure that we, as a body collectively--at least by majority vote-- are able to believe that nominated officials will have the honesty, the character, and wherewithal to carry out their duties and to serve all of the American people well. After long and difficult deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that there are significant questions raised on John Ashcroft's fitness to be our Nation's chief law enforcement officer. First and foremost, I have serious concerns about the misleading statements Mr. Ashcroft made during the confirmation hearings. As we all know, Senator Ashcroft strongly opposed the nomination of Mr. Jim Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Jim Hormel, a distinguished lawyer, successful businessman, educator, philanthropist a scion of our famous midwestern families. We all have heard of Hormel Meats. We probably had Hormel bacon in the morning, things such as that. They are a fine family who came from Iowa and Minnesota. Mr. Hormel, of course, has taken up his residency, as of late, in San Francisco, I don't know how many years ago, but some years ago. Prior to that, he had been Dean of Students at the University of Chicago Law School. I have known Mr. Hormel for many years. I consider him a friend. As I said, not only is he a great lawyer, businessman, educator, and philanthropist, but he is also an outstanding family man. In 1998, Mr. Ashcroft said he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because he had--and I quote John Ashcroft's own words--``actively supported the gay lifestyle.'' Further, Mr. Ashcroft said that a person's sexual conduct--and I quote again Mr. Ashcroft's own words--``is within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration'' for ambassadorial nominees. However, in his testimony just 2 weeks ago, Mr. Ashcroft denied his opposition had anything to do with Jim Hormel's sexual orientation. He said he opposed him because, again, he had known Jim Hormel for a long time, going back to the days when Hormel had--and I quote again John Ashcroft--``recruited him'' for law school. Mr. Ashcroft said he based his opposition to Jim Hormel being Ambassador to Luxembourg on the totality of Hormel's record. I spoke with Ambassador Hormel just last week about this. He said he had never had any contact with Senator Ashcroft, not when he was dean of students at the University of Chicago Law School and not since he was nominated in 1997. He did not recruit Mr. Ashcroft for law school. As dean of students, of course--and there are a lot of students there--Mr. Hormel was honest; he said: I can't remember. Maybe when he was a student, I might have met him. I might have talked to him. I might have said something to a group of students. He may have come into my office for something. But I have no recollection of that. Furthermore, Mr. Hormel emphatically stated he did not ``recruit'' John Ashcroft for Chicago Law School. When he was nominated in 1997, Mr. Hormel repeatedly tried to meet with John Ashcroft to talk to him. Even if I oppose someone, I at least give them the courtesy to come in and make their case. I have always made that policy, because maybe there is something I haven't heard or something I would look at differently. John Ashcroft would not even meet with Jim Hormel. Mr. Hormel did get a recess appointment from President Clinton, served well, and was distinguished in his post in Luxembourg. I asked people at the State Department in charge of that area how he performed, and they said extremely well. They said that he had conducted his position in the best interests of the United States and as a distinguished Ambassador. Again, sexual orientation should not have any bearing on a person's fitness for that job or any other job. John Ashcroft also testified that he has never asked job applicants about their sexual orientation. But in a recent Washington Post article, a health care expert, Paul Offner, who had interviewed for a cabinet post under then Governor Ashcroft, remembers differently. Offner, who is now part of the Georgetown University faculty, recalled that Governor Ashcroft's first question to him was whether or not he had the same sexual preferences as most men. At the time it happened, Offner, also told others about the interview question. If this is true, this does not seem to be the kind of individual who should serve as Attorney General of the United States of America. I am also disturbed by how, as an elected official--namely, U.S. Senator--Mr. Ashcroft used unseemly political tactics, including the reckless and unwarranted destruction of a judicial nominee's reputation, a sitting judge's reputation, for his own political benefit. Senator Ashcroft led the campaign to block the Federal judicial nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White in order to gain political points in his reelection bid against then- sitting Gov. Mel Carnahan. Ashcroft on this very floor referred to the distinguished and accomplished judge as ``pro-criminal and activist,'' a man with a ``tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' Mr. Ashcroft stood on this floor--I remember listening to him, and I couldn't believe someone actually said this about a sitting State supreme court justice from his own State--that Judge White had ``a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' I don't know Ronnie White. I have met him only once. But after I looked over his record it seemed to me that what Mr. Ashcroft was saying was not only false, it was defamatory. And it is behavior unworthy of a U.S. Attorney General. It is one thing in a political campaign to take on your political opponent and hit him with tough words in tough races, but you can fight back. I have been hit pretty hard in some of my political campaigns. But when the election is over, you get over it because at least you are able to fight back. Here was a Senator using the privileges of the floor of the Senate to personally defame the character of a sitting Supreme Court justice of the State of Missouri when that judge had no ability to fight back. Finally Mr. White did get his day, sort of, in court before the Judiciary Committee. I commend Senator Leahy for making sure Ronnie White got his day here to show that he is a distinguished justice, that he has absolutely the opposite of a bent toward criminal activity. He also strongly believes in upholding the law, ensuring that every person, no matter how low that person is, no matter how heinous the crime--that every person has competent representation and a fair trial. Mr. Ashcroft's own words and what he did to Justice White make me wonder if Mr. Ashcroft thinks every person, no matter how low, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter how much you disagree with that person, is entitled to competent representation and a fair trial. I also have concerns about John Ashcroft's testimony about the desegregation court order in Missouri when he was attorney general and governor. John Ashcroft said that Missouri did nothing wrong. But I think most people would agree that upholding segregation and blatantly defying a federal court order is the very definition of wrong. This was in the 1980s, not the 1950s. Also while Governor, Mr. Ashcroft appointed the election boards in St. Louis County and in St. Louis city. The county, an affluent area, 84 percent white, votes mainly Republican; the city, less affluent, 47 percent black, votes mainly Democratic. During that period of time, the county hired 1,500 volunteers, such as out of the League of Women Voters, for training, for registration of voters. During that same period of time, the city board trained zero because the city election board, appointed by John Ashcroft, refused to follow the policy on volunteers used by his appointed board in the county and throughout the state. The State legislature saw this anomaly and passed two bills in 1988 and 1989 to require the city to do the same as the county and the state. Governor Ashcroft vetoed both of those bills. I am also troubled by parts of John Ashcroft's record which reflects poorly on his commitment to seeking justice for all Americans. Despite his statements to the contrary, I am simply not convinced that John Ashcroft will diligently and thoroughly uphold all of our laws. I am particularly concerned about John Ashcroft's statements and actions regarding reproductive rights. Throughout his career, he has been a staunch opponent of the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. He even wrote legislation to criminalize abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Yet during his recent testimony, John Ashcroft told committee members he believes that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land--and he would not try to overturn it. He even stated, ``No woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services.'' How are America's women supposed to believe John Ashcroft in his recent testimony on a woman's right to choose when he had repeatedly stated during his political career that there is no constitutional right to choose and that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided? I'm not sure he can. I am not sure anyone can simply switch off decades of hostility to reproductive rights, intolerance towards homosexuals, and other views, and then fairly and aggressively enforce the laws--he deeply believes are wrong. As I expect, John Ashcroft will be confirmed despite my vote. I hope they will prove me wrong. I thank the President.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Specter on the introduction of the Commission on the Comprehensive Study of Voting Procedures Act of 2001. This measure is very similar to the one we introduced soon after last year's election. I think that we can all agree that this year's Presidential election has exposed a number of serious flaws in Florida's voting system, as well as in those of many states around the country. First, thousands of ballots were not counted due to voter error. Some people voted for two candidates. Some voted for no candidate. And thousands who voted for just one candidate did so in such a way that their ballots could not be accurately read by vote-counting machines. Second, the systems we traditionally use to decide elections--systems that can determine the results of an election that is won by one percent or two percent or five percent of the vote--simply aren't accurate enough to decide an election based on a margin of just hundredths of one percent. For example, ask any election expert in the country, and they'll tell you that punch card machines just aren't up to such a task. The press late last year was filled with reports and analysis showing that punch card systems have a far greater proportion of undercounted votes than other systems. We also now know that butterfly ballots were not the wisest idea. And it's not just a matter of avoiding that particular design. We've also got to develop a mechanism to ensure that ballots are designed in ways that voter error is minimized. In addition, we learned that some Floridians thought they were registered to vote. However, when they arrived at the polls, they found that their names were not listed on the registration roles. These citizens were not allowed to vote in Florida. Clearly, our voting system has flaws. However there's nothing wrong with our voting system that can't be fixed by what's right with it. For example, in Iowa, we have a law that allows any potential voter who is not found on the registration roles to cast a ``challenged ballot.'' This challenged ballot is like an absentee ballot. It's put in an envelope, and election officials spend the days immediately after the election rechecking registration roles for clerical errors. If an error was made, and a person was indeed registered to vote, then his or her challenged ballot is counted. This isn't a perfect solution, but it ensures that fewer people fall through the cracks. And there are more creative answers like this just waiting to be discovered in innovative, forward-thinking counties throughout America. That's why Senator Specter and I have introduced a bill designed to revamp our election systems to make them as clear, accessible and accurate as possible. The Specter-Harkin bill establishes a bipartisan commission which would spend one year examining election practices throughout America. The Commission would seek to discover the strengths and weaknesses in our election system in order to determine the best course of action for the future. The Commission would specifically be responsible for studying the following: (1) Voting procedures in Federal, State, and local government elections. (2) Voting procedures that represent the best practices in Federal, State, and local government elections. (3) Legislation and regulatory efforts that affect voting procedures issues. (4) The implementation of standardized voting procedures, including standardized technology for Federal, State, and local government elections. (5) The speed and timeliness of vote counts in Federal, State and local elections. (6) The accuracy of vote counts in Federal, State and local elections. (7) The security of voting procedures in Federal, State and local elections. (8) The accessibility of voting procedures for individuals with disabilities and the elderly. (9) The level of matching grant funding necessary to implement the Commission's recommendations. Lastly, the bill authorizes a one-to-one matching grant program subject to the appropriation of the funds. The commission would seek to answer questions like the following: What are the latest innovations in voting technology? What are the best failsafe systems we can install to alert voters that they've voted for too many candidates or too few? Are we doing everything we can to make our voting system accessible to the elderly, people with disabilities, and others with special needs? The next Presidential election is less than four years away. By allotting 12 full months for the Commission to study our voting systems, we'll leave time for the Commission to finish a report and submit it to Congress for review and passage, and to allow Federal, State and local governments to pass and implement new voting legislation. But the timeline is tight, and we must move forward quickly. Clearly, when it comes to voting, local officials should have discretion in their precincts. But at the very least, we must establish minimum standards for accessibility and accuracy in order to ensure a full, fair and precise count. We also need clear guidelines regarding the recounting of votes in very close elections. Each vote is an expression of one American's will, and we cannot deny anyone that fundamental right to shape our democracy. There will always be conflicting views about what happened in Florida. And we'll probably never come to complete agreement on the results. But let us move forward and work together to minimize voting inaccuracies in the future and ensure every American's right to be heard.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Frist today to introduce the ``WISEWOMAN Expansion Act.'' This bill will help thousands of women have access to basic preventive health care they may otherwise not receive. The legislation builds on a successful demonstration program and expands screening services and preventive care for uninsured and low-income women across the nation. Beginning in 1990, I worked as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Subcommittee to provide the funding for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, NBCCEDP, run through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Iowa alone, the program has successfully served close to 9000 women through 618 provider-based breast and cervical cancer screening sites. Today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently run the WISEWOMAN program through the NBCCEDP as a demonstration project. The program has successfully built upon the framework of the NBCCEDP to target other chronic diseases among women, including heart disease, the leading cause of death among women, and osteoporosis. The programs address risk factors such as elevated cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and smoking and provide important intervention services. This demonstration project has been successful. It is now time to expand the program to additional states, and eventually make it nationwide. As the brother of two sisters lost to breast cancer and the father of two daughters, I know first hand the importance of making women's health initiatives a top priority. The first step to fighting a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease or osteoporosis is early detection. All women deserve to benefit from the early detection and prevention made possible by the latest advances in medicine. This bill ensures a place for lower income woman at the health care table. The majority of Americans associate cardiovascular disease with men, but the American Heart Association estimates that nearly one in two women will die of heart disease or stroke. In fact, cardiovascular diseases kills nearly 50,000 more women each year than men. In my own state of Iowa, cardiovascular disease accounts for 44 percent of all deaths in Iowa. Close to 7,000 women die annually in Iowa from cardiovascular disease. Each year, nearly half a million women lose their lives as a result of heart disease and stroke. Sadly, with appropriate screening and interventions, many of these deaths could have been prevented. Osteoporosis is also a preventable disease and affects one out of every two women over the age of 50. Fortunately, some of the preventive measures women can take to reduce their risk for cardiovascular diseases, such as eating more nutritious foods and exercising, can also reduce their risk for osteoporosis. Our bill would do the following: Expand the current WISEWOMAN demonstration project to additional states; Add flexibility to program language that would allow screenings and other preventive measures for diseases in addition to cardiovascular diseases; Allow flexibility for the WISEWOMAN program to grow and adapt with the changing needs of individual states and our better understanding of new preventive strategies; and Ensure continued full collaboration of the WISEWOMAN program with the NBCCEDP; Authorize the CDC to make competitive grants to states to carry out additional preventive health services to the breast and cervical cancer screenings at NBCCEDP programs, such as: screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, and osteoporosis; health education and counseling; lifestyle interventions to change behavioral risk factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, poor nutrition, and sedentary lifestyle; and appropriate referrals for medical treatment and follow- up services. In order to be eligible for this program, states are required to already participate in the NBCCEDP and to agree to operate their WISEWOMAN program in collaboration with the NBCCEDP. This bipartisan legislation has the support of the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation, among others. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Specter on the introduction of the Commission on the Comprehensive Study of Voting Procedures Act of 2001. This measure is very similar to the one we introduced soon after last year's election. I think that we can all agree that this year's Presidential election has exposed a number of serious flaws in Florida's voting system, as well as in those of many states around the country. First, thousands of ballots were not counted due to voter error. Some people voted for two candidates. Some voted for no candidate. And thousands who voted for just one candidate did so in such a way that their ballots could not be accurately read by vote-counting machines. Second, the systems we traditionally use to decide elections--systems that can determine the results of an election that is won by one percent or two percent or five percent of the vote--simply aren't accurate enough to decide an election based on a margin of just hundredths of one percent. For example, ask any election expert in the country, and they'll tell you that punch card machines just aren't up to such a task. The press late last year was filled with reports and analysis showing that punch card systems have a far greater proportion of undercounted votes than other systems. We also now know that butterfly ballots were not the wisest idea. And it's not just a matter of avoiding that particular design. We've also got to develop a mechanism to ensure that ballots are designed in ways that voter error is minimized. In addition, we learned that some Floridians thought they were registered to vote. However, when they arrived at the polls, they found that their names were not listed on the registration roles. These citizens were not allowed to vote in Florida. Clearly, our voting system has flaws. However there's nothing wrong with our voting system that can't be fixed by what's right with it. For example, in Iowa, we have a law that allows any potential voter who is not found on the registration roles to cast a ``challenged ballot.'' This challenged ballot is like an absentee ballot. It's put in an envelope, and election officials spend the days immediately after the election rechecking registration roles for clerical errors. If an error was made, and a person was indeed registered to vote, then his or her challenged ballot is counted. This isn't a perfect solution, but it ensures that fewer people fall through the cracks. And there are more creative answers like this just waiting to be discovered in innovative, forward-thinking counties throughout America. That's why Senator Specter and I have introduced a bill designed to revamp our election systems to make them as clear, accessible and accurate as possible. The Specter-Harkin bill establishes a bipartisan commission which would spend one year examining election practices throughout America. The Commission would seek to discover the strengths and weaknesses in our election system in order to determine the best course of action for the future. The Commission would specifically be responsible for studying the following: (1) Voting procedures in Federal, State, and local government elections. (2) Voting procedures that represent the best practices in Federal, State, and local government elections. (3) Legislation and regulatory efforts that affect voting procedures issues. (4) The implementation of standardized voting procedures, including standardized technology for Federal, State, and local government elections. (5) The speed and timeliness of vote counts in Federal, State and local elections. (6) The accuracy of vote counts in Federal, State and local elections. (7) The security of voting procedures in Federal, State and local elections. (8) The accessibility of voting procedures for individuals with disabilities and the elderly. (9) The level of matching grant funding necessary to implement the Commission's recommendations. Lastly, the bill authorizes a one-to-one matching grant program subject to the appropriation of the funds. The commission would seek to answer questions like the following: What are the latest innovations in voting technology? What are the best failsafe systems we can install to alert voters that they've voted for too many candidates or too few? Are we doing everything we can to make our voting system accessible to the elderly, people with disabilities, and others with special needs? The next Presidential election is less than four years away. By allotting 12 full months for the Commission to study our voting systems, we'll leave time for the Commission to finish a report and submit it to Congress for review and passage, and to allow Federal, State and local governments to pass and implement new voting legislation. But the timeline is tight, and we must move forward quickly. Clearly, when it comes to voting, local officials should have discretion in their precincts. But at the very least, we must establish minimum standards for accessibility and accuracy in order to ensure a full, fair and precise count. We also need clear guidelines regarding the recounting of votes in very close elections. Each vote is an expression of one American's will, and we cannot deny anyone that fundamental right to shape our democracy. There will always be conflicting views about what happened in Florida. And we'll probably never come to complete agreement on the results. But let us move forward and work together to minimize voting inaccuracies in the future and ensure every American's right to be heard.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Frist today to introduce the ``WISEWOMAN Expansion Act.'' This bill will help thousands of women have access to basic preventive health care they may otherwise not receive. The legislation builds on a successful demonstration program and expands screening services and preventive care for uninsured and low-income women across the nation. Beginning in 1990, I worked as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Subcommittee to provide the funding for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, NBCCEDP, run through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Iowa alone, the program has successfully served close to 9000 women through 618 provider-based breast and cervical cancer screening sites. Today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently run the WISEWOMAN program through the NBCCEDP as a demonstration project. The program has successfully built upon the framework of the NBCCEDP to target other chronic diseases among women, including heart disease, the leading cause of death among women, and osteoporosis. The programs address risk factors such as elevated cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and smoking and provide important intervention services. This demonstration project has been successful. It is now time to expand the program to additional states, and eventually make it nationwide. As the brother of two sisters lost to breast cancer and the father of two daughters, I know first hand the importance of making women's health initiatives a top priority. The first step to fighting a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease or osteoporosis is early detection. All women deserve to benefit from the early detection and prevention made possible by the latest advances in medicine. This bill ensures a place for lower income woman at the health care table. The majority of Americans associate cardiovascular disease with men, but the American Heart Association estimates that nearly one in two women will die of heart disease or stroke. In fact, cardiovascular diseases kills nearly 50,000 more women each year than men. In my own state of Iowa, cardiovascular disease accounts for 44 percent of all deaths in Iowa. Close to 7,000 women die annually in Iowa from cardiovascular disease. Each year, nearly half a million women lose their lives as a result of heart disease and stroke. Sadly, with appropriate screening and interventions, many of these deaths could have been prevented. Osteoporosis is also a preventable disease and affects one out of every two women over the age of 50. Fortunately, some of the preventive measures women can take to reduce their risk for cardiovascular diseases, such as eating more nutritious foods and exercising, can also reduce their risk for osteoporosis. Our bill would do the following: Expand the current WISEWOMAN demonstration project to additional states; Add flexibility to program language that would allow screenings and other preventive measures for diseases in addition to cardiovascular diseases; Allow flexibility for the WISEWOMAN program to grow and adapt with the changing needs of individual states and our better understanding of new preventive strategies; and Ensure continued full collaboration of the WISEWOMAN program with the NBCCEDP; Authorize the CDC to make competitive grants to states to carry out additional preventive health services to the breast and cervical cancer screenings at NBCCEDP programs, such as: screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, and osteoporosis; health education and counseling; lifestyle interventions to change behavioral risk factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, poor nutrition, and sedentary lifestyle; and appropriate referrals for medical treatment and follow- up services. In order to be eligible for this program, states are required to already participate in the NBCCEDP and to agree to operate their WISEWOMAN program in collaboration with the NBCCEDP. This bipartisan legislation has the support of the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation, among others. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation introduced by the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. The bill contains a number of important features that constitute a strong start for our work toward a new farm bill. In particular, I want to call attention to the provisions in this bill that will address directly the rapid changes occurring in the structure of our food and agriculture industry and the impact those changes are having on America's farm and ranch families and rural communities. This bill will give USDA new authority to deal with economic concentration and consolidation in agriculture: to prevent mergers and acquisitions that damage farmers and rural communities and to prevent and take enforcement action against anti-competitive and unfair practices in dealings by agribusinesses with farmers. The legislation also incorporates legislation I introduced in the previous Congress to establish new protections for agricultural producers who are involved in contracting arrangements with agribusiness processors and to establish new protections that will enhance the ability of agricultural producers to form associations to bargain effectively with processors and buyers of agricultural products. I am also pleased that this bill incorporates my legislation to create a new fund that will spur new equity capital investment in rural areas. The legislation has the support of a wide range of the key interested parties in providing and boosting financing and business investment in rural America. Clearly, if rural America is to grow, and if agricultural producers are to develop new value-added businesses, there will have to be increased levels of equity capital investment in agricultural processing and other businesses. This bill will go a long way in putting more investment capital into rural communities. This bill also makes a strong start toward improving the shortcomings of the commodity program provisions of the current farm bill. We have all observed the critical need for emergency assistance packages to shore up the Freedom to Farm bill over the past several years. But our farm families and rural communities need a predictable and dependable system of farm income protection. This bill would provide for loan rates that are more realistic in light of current production costs in order to improve the farm income protection. It focuses on providing better assistance when it is needed, rather than simply making additional fixed payments regardless of actual market conditions. As I said, I believe the marketing assistance loan rate provisions in this bill are a strong start. We recognize that under the current formula, even without the existing loan rate caps, the marketing loan rates would have declined quite substantially as market prices suffered in recent years. That means a less effective system of farm income protection. However, further work and discussion on loan rate formulas and program details will be necessary as we work further on the next farm bill. In particular, it is important that the relative loan rates among the various commodities are in balance. Of course, that is the main objective of these provisions: to bring other loan rates into reasonable equivalence with the loan rates for oilseeds. But we do not want to create any new inequality while trying to address what is now felt to be an imbalance. It is also important for us to contemplate the consequences of any changes in loan rates that we may ultimately enact, including any impacts on production levels and patterns, and impacts on the relative benefits under the program for family-size farms in comparison with those for much larger operations. For that reason I believe that there must be some restriction or limitation on the quantity of production that is eligible for higher loan rates. Otherwise, I am concerned that we are providing only a small amount of help to family-size farms, but far more to their larger and already better capitalized neighbors simply because those larger farms are producing larger quantities of loan-eligible commodities. Similarly, if the loan rate is increased for every unit of production of a given commodity on every farm, no matter how large, we must consider the incentives for higher production that will be put into markets that are in surplus. The commodity provisions are, of course, only one part of a comprehensive approach to a new farm bill. I very strongly believe that the next farm bill should include a new program of incentives for farm and ranch conservation practices. In this way we will improve farm income while also enhancing conservation of natural resources for our children and succeeding generations. I am not proposing a substitute for existing conservation programs, nor am I proposing to abandon commodity and farm income protection programs. But I believe that we can accomplish a great deal by adding to our farm policy a new conservation incentive program. Again, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues to work further together on crafting a new farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation introduced by the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. The bill contains a number of important features that constitute a strong start for our work toward a new farm bill. In particular, I want to call attention to the provisions in this bill that will address directly the rapid changes occurring in the structure of our food and agriculture industry and the impact those changes are having on America's farm and ranch families and rural communities. This bill will give USDA new authority to deal with economic concentration and consolidation in agriculture: to prevent mergers and acquisitions that damage farmers and rural communities and to prevent and take enforcement action against anti-competitive and unfair practices in dealings by agribusinesses with farmers. The legislation also incorporates legislation I introduced in the previous Congress to establish new protections for agricultural producers who are involved in contracting arrangements with agribusiness processors and to establish new protections that will enhance the ability of agricultural producers to form associations to bargain effectively with processors and buyers of agricultural products. I am also pleased that this bill incorporates my legislation to create a new fund that will spur new equity capital investment in rural areas. The legislation has the support of a wide range of the key interested parties in providing and boosting financing and business investment in rural America. Clearly, if rural America is to grow, and if agricultural producers are to develop new value-added businesses, there will have to be increased levels of equity capital investment in agricultural processing and other businesses. This bill will go a long way in putting more investment capital into rural communities. This bill also makes a strong start toward improving the shortcomings of the commodity program provisions of the current farm bill. We have all observed the critical need for emergency assistance packages to shore up the Freedom to Farm bill over the past several years. But our farm families and rural communities need a predictable and dependable system of farm income protection. This bill would provide for loan rates that are more realistic in light of current production costs in order to improve the farm income protection. It focuses on providing better assistance when it is needed, rather than simply making additional fixed payments regardless of actual market conditions. As I said, I believe the marketing assistance loan rate provisions in this bill are a strong start. We recognize that under the current formula, even without the existing loan rate caps, the marketing loan rates would have declined quite substantially as market prices suffered in recent years. That means a less effective system of farm income protection. However, further work and discussion on loan rate formulas and program details will be necessary as we work further on the next farm bill. In particular, it is important that the relative loan rates among the various commodities are in balance. Of course, that is the main objective of these provisions: to bring other loan rates into reasonable equivalence with the loan rates for oilseeds. But we do not want to create any new inequality while trying to address what is now felt to be an imbalance. It is also important for us to contemplate the consequences of any changes in loan rates that we may ultimately enact, including any impacts on production levels and patterns, and impacts on the relative benefits under the program for family-size farms in comparison with those for much larger operations. For that reason I believe that there must be some restriction or limitation on the quantity of production that is eligible for higher loan rates. Otherwise, I am concerned that we are providing only a small amount of help to family-size farms, but far more to their larger and already better capitalized neighbors simply because those larger farms are producing larger quantities of loan-eligible commodities. Similarly, if the loan rate is increased for every unit of production of a given commodity on every farm, no matter how large, we must consider the incentives for higher production that will be put into markets that are in surplus. The commodity provisions are, of course, only one part of a comprehensive approach to a new farm bill. I very strongly believe that the next farm bill should include a new program of incentives for farm and ranch conservation practices. In this way we will improve farm income while also enhancing conservation of natural resources for our children and succeeding generations. I am not proposing a substitute for existing conservation programs, nor am I proposing to abandon commodity and farm income protection programs. But I believe that we can accomplish a great deal by adding to our farm policy a new conservation incentive program. Again, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues to work further together on crafting a new farm bill.