Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, is it correct that I am allotted 45 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before getting into my main comments on the Agriculture Appropriations conference report, I want to make a few comments in response to the Senator from Arizona, who spoke about various items that are in this bill and criticized them. I am very proud of my service on the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and I am very proud of our chairman and ranking member for the bill they put together. It is a good bill. I am going to vote for it because it provides needed funding for a range of programs and activities important not only to farm families and rural communities but to consumers and our Nation generally. I thank our agriculture appropriations chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking Democratic member, Senator Kohl, for their hard work on this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to have worked with them, and I thank them for their cooperation in responding to my views on various items in this legislation. I commend them for their work in putting this bill together. Overall, it is a good bill. The Senator from Arizona cited a number of items in the bill. I did not hear him mention some research grants for the fruit and vegetable market analysis for Arizona. There was a produce pricing item in there for Arizona. There was a Federal administration research grant for shrimp aquaculture for several States, including Arizona. Also in the conference report, there is a $5 million item for Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory in Maricopa, AZ. I do not know a lot about those facilities. I know our colleague, Senator Kyl, is on the committee. I am sure he has looked at these items and may have had something to do with them being in there. I do not know. But I believe the Senator from Arizona, who just spoke, is off the mark because most of the items in this bill are there because Senators pay attention to the needs of their constituents and they pay attention to the needs of our country. I am not cognizant of this Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory in Maricopa for $5 million, but it probably has something to do with cotton production, which is important to our country. It probably has something to do with cotton production in Arizona, which is obviously important to the people of Arizona and Western States. I don't know. Maybe this has something also to do with the large amounts of Federal subsidies that our Government provides for water and for irrigation for cotton in Arizona. I listened in vain to hear my colleague from Arizona decry the use of subsidized water in his State of Arizona. Well, I'm not here today going after it. It is probably necessary for the people of Arizona, probably necessary for western cotton production, and could be important for western animal production. So I think my friend from Arizona, in taking after a lot of the items in the Agriculture appropriations bill, is just simply off the mark. Oh, I know it probably makes good press. You can probably get a good column written once in a while about pork barrel spending and all that kind of stuff, but when you go down these items, these are items that are important to the people of those constituencies in those States, important to agriculture in those States and, as such, it is important to agriculture for the entire country. So that is why I commend the chairman and the ranking member for putting this bill together. It is a good bill. In fact, if you want to talk about items that are in the bill that pertain to States, let me talk about one in my own State. One of my highest priorities was to obtain funding for the planning and design of new facilities at the Department of Agriculture's National Animal Disease Laboratory in Ames, IA. I am pleased that the bill has the full $9 million that was requested for this purpose in the President's budget. These new facilities are absolutely critical for biocontainment and work with animals with highly contagious diseases. The National Animal Disease Laboratory is one of--of course, in my opinion, it is the preeminent animal disease research facility in the United States. But the conditions of this facility are very poor. The main facility there was constructed beginning in the 1950s. Now we face threats from new animal diseases; some that are highly contagious, some that can be used by terrorists for bioterrorism. Yet the facilities, some that were built some 40 years ago, are not built to contain them adequately, safely, and securely. We need to move forward to improve the National Animal Disease Laboratory facilities as quickly as possible, to protect against emerging, highly contagious, highly infectious animal diseases, many of which, if not contained, if let loose in the environment, could cause tremendous numbers of illnesses and deaths. So the NADL funding is not just about protecting animal life and health; it is also for protecting human life and health as well. Sure, this facility is located in Iowa--I am very proud of it; it predates my service in Congress--but it is a national laboratory. This is another example where money has gone to a State, but it has gone for a national purpose. It is just like any of the other national laboratories that we have. This is the preeminent one for animal disease. I also want to point out some other priority items of particular interest in Iowa that are in the bill. They are particular to Iowa, but they are broader than the State, including funding for research that will help block the use of anhydrous ammonia to make methamphetamine. That is one that is in this bill. It helps us in Iowa, but it helps us in many other States. There is an item in the bill for addressing serious erosion problems in Iowa's Loess Hills. The Loess Hills in Iowa make up the only geologic formation of its kind anywhere in the world outside the nation of China. These are a national treasure. There is some money in here to address some of the serious erosion problems in this very unique geologic formation. There is money in here for research into industrial lubricants made from soybeans and other commodities, for farm safety education, and for dairy research and education. I see my friend from Minnesota is here. I just joined him in Minnesota yesterday. We traveled around the State. I was reading an article--I think it happened in Minnesota, but if it didn't happen in Minnesota, it happened in Iowa--where a little 3-year-old boy got one arm and his other hand caught in a farm auger. I was reading the tragic story of how the doctors tried to reattach his arm and were unsuccessful in doing so. So this young 3-year-old boy has lost his right arm and, I believe, his left hand because of an accident on a farm. Do we need funds for better research and education so that farmers and their families can be more safe in their occupations? You bet we do. And that is very worthwhile funding. This bill also includes major increases in funding for food safety activities at USDA and FDA. This has been a priority of mine for a number of years. For USDA, food safety funding will increase by $28.3 million; and for FDA, the funding will increase by $30 million. That means that for USDA and FDA we are fully funding the President's food safety initiative. That is good, but there is a lot more we have to do in the way of food safety. Last month, we had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee on food safety. Chairman Lugar and I worked together to help set it up. In that hearing we gathered some very telling information about the resources that we are putting into food safety. The General Accounting Office testified that in fiscal year 1999, about $1 billion was spent on USDA and FDA food safety activities combined. Of that amount, USDA received $712 million to inspect some 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments. FDA, however, received only $260 million with which it had to inspect over 57,000 food establishments and 9,000 animal drug and feed establishments. So USDA gets $712 million. They have 6,000 establishments to inspect. FDA got only $260 million. They had to inspect over 66,000 establishments. Here is the twist. About 85 percent of the instances of foodborne illness are linked to foods that fall under FDA's jurisdiction, and only 15 percent of them fall under USDA's jurisdiction. So clearly, we have our work cut out for us in the area of food safety. We need more resources for the Food and Drug Administration. But, in reality, we really need a more unified and coordinated structure for federal food safety. Next year, this Congress should work to that end. I know my colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, has a bill on that. Obviously, all the bills will die at the end of this session of this Congress, but we need to join forces in a bipartisan fashion next year. I believe there will be broad support among food producers and consumers to have a unified coordinated structure for food safety here at the Federal level. I was also pleased to be able to work with Congressman Walsh of New York to include in this conference report important hunger relief measures. The provisions in this bill will significantly help in making sure Americans who have high rent and utility costs, or who just happen to have a modest, reliable automobile, can still receive food stamp benefits they need to feed their families. The vehicle provision is especially important in rural areas where people need to have a decent car to get to town or to get to work. They should not be disqualified from food stamps just because they own a modest, dependable vehicle. I am also pleased that there were significant increases in rural housing, sewer, and water assistance, and economic development support important for rural America. I am, however, concerned about an increase in the fee for rural housing. For the rural housing loan assistance program, the fee was increased from 1 percent to 2 percent. That was included in the final measure. I believe this hurts the ability of modest-income families to become homeowners in rural areas. I will be working to reverse that. This legislation also includes a substantial amount of additional emergency spending to respond to the needs arising from various types of economic and natural disaster losses. Overall, there is approximately $3.6 billion in emergency assistance, including compensation for crop production and crop quality losses, livestock and dairy assistance, and funding for the important emergency conservation and emergency watershed programs. This emergency assistance will be very important to farmers who have suffered from drought and severe weather in Iowa and many other States. Over the past several years, Congress has provided a good deal of emergency assistance to farmers. In the past 3 years, the emergency assistance has amounted to over $22 billion. As I said, in this bill there is an additional $3.6 billion. For the most part, that assistance was clearly needed--in fact, critically needed. It helped keep many farm families on the land who otherwise would have been forced out of business. Keep in mind, these emergency payments were on top of the spending under provisions of the existing farm bill. For fiscal year 2000, USDA made some $28 billion in direct payments of one kind or another to U.S. farmers. That is a record. And the overall cost of farm programs was $32.3 billion, another record. Looking at it another way, in calendar year 2000, U.S. farmers will receive $23.3 billion in direct payments from the Federal Government, but they will have a net farm income of only $45.6 billion. Over 50 percent--over half--of U.S. net farm income this year will come from direct Government payments. In fact, last year in Iowa, USDA payments exceeded our net farm income. I can't help but ask, whatever happened to the promises made by the backers of the so-called Freedom to Farm bill? They were going to ``get the Government out of agriculture and let the free market work.'' What do we have? Commodity prices have crashed. Farm program spending by the Government is at record levels, and farmers are still being driven off the land by the thousands. Get the Government out? Farmers today are every bit, if not more, reliant on the Government than they have ever been before. Freedom to Farm did not get the Government out of agriculture, but it sure has been successful in getting family farmers out of agriculture. Today our farmers plant for the Government program. They market for the Government program. They rely on the Government program for over half their net farm income. Already, Freedom to Farm has cost $29 billion more than its backers promised when it was passed in 1996. The emergency assistance we have passed went to help a lot of farmers. But it is a serious indictment of the current Freedom to Farm bill that Congress has had to provide emergency farm income assistance 4 years in a row. And the way things are going, we are going to have to add more in this fiscal year beyond what is in this bill. We cannot any longer tolerate a farm policy that lurches from one emergency spending measure to the next. It is time for Congress to recognize that Freedom to Farm has become ``freedom to fail.'' It has failed. We need to write a new farm bill, one that maintains the planning flexibility and the environmental programs we all support--but that restores the income protection, the farm safety net, the countercyclical programs that farmers need. I listened to the debate last night. What I heard was Vice President Gore say we need to change our farm program, we need a better safety net, we need better conservation programs that are voluntary, that we can put more money into conservation, but to provide a better income protection and a countercyclical program for farmers. To the best of my knowledge and information, Governor Bush has said he wants to stick with Freedom to Farm. I think those who live in rural America and on our farms should know that, should know the data, the facts I have just laid out. Farm program spending is at an all-time high, yet thousands of farmer are still going out of business. We need a new direction and a new farm bill. We need it soon. Here is another aspect of the failure of the Freedom to Farm bill. Because farmers are so heavily reliant on direct payments, Congress has stepped in this year and last year to raise the payment limitation for loan deficiency payments, what are known as LDPs, and marketing loan gains. We have raised the payment limitation for loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains to $150,000 instead of $75,000 which was in the farm bill. It was done last year, and it is done again this year in this bill. But there is a wrinkle that deserves more attention. If an individual sets up partnerships or corporations, that individual can actually double the effective payment limitation. That means that, in reality, the payment limitation for the largest farms is now $300,000 for an individual. I have to ask: How can we justify paying out such large amounts of money to the largest farms while family farms are struggling to survive and going out of business? We are told that this payment limitation relief was absolutely necessary, even to help family-size farms. But in reality, only a very small share of farms actually receive any benefit from this increase in the payment limit. The Environmental Working Group analyzed the USDA data and determined that fewer than five-tenths of 1 percent of farms and farm businesses that are receiving USDA payments actually benefited from the payment limitation increase Congress approved in 1999. These 3,400 individuals and farm businesses received an average of $148,000 under this program last year, 14 times higher than the $7,200 received by the average farmer. We have similar numbers from the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA. Based on data collected in the 1997 census of agriculture, they found that the number of farmers who might benefit for that year with the change included in this conference report is about 13,000, which is perhaps about 1.5 percent of the total participants in the Federal commodity programs. So again, this doubling of farm payment limitations went to help just a very small percentage of farms of the largest size. It seems to me, if we are going to provide these amounts of money, we should put it in to help the family size farms that are struggling, the kind of farms Senator Wellstone and I visited yesterday in southern Minnesota. These are not huge farms, these are family farms, yet they are the ones being squeezed. The big ones that are perhaps farming thousands of acres of land are getting huge payments of up to $300,000. That doesn't make sense. These large farms can protect themselves, take care of themselves. If we are going to put the money in for farmers, let's help the struggling family farms first. I also want to talk about the Cuba provisions. I believe what is in this conference report on Cuba was really a step backward. There is a superficial sham opening of the embargo on agricultural shipments to Cuba from the United States, but the restrictions are so great that I do not believe it will amount to anything. Keep in mind that no direct financing can be provided by any U.S. financial institution to anyone who wants to sell products to Cuba. Well, financing is a critical part of agricultural exports. Anyone knows that. Yet no direct financing can be provided. You have to go to some third country to get it. Also, the bill locks into statute the travel restrictions that have been in place regarding Cuba, which are administrative. This locks them into law. It will make it just that much harder to bring down the barriers to change in Cuba. We have had a failed policy on Cuba for 40 years now--a failed policy. This bill keeps us on the same path. Actually, what we are doing in this bill is the best thing we could ever do to keep Fidel Castro in power. If you want to change things in Cuba, open it up and let people travel there. Open it up for exports. Let our farmers travel there and sell our goods and products in Cuba without the restrictions this bill writes into law. That would be the single best thing we could do. But, no, we are doing the same thing we have done for 40 years. Someone once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We keep doing the same thing year after year after year with Cuba, and we expect some different results. It is time we change our Cuba policy. Lastly, I want to talk about the issue of drug reimportation. There was a provision in this bill that would have allowed pharmacists and wholesalers to reimport prescription drugs. The cost of prescription drugs is a critical issue. I have had meetings with seniors across Iowa to talk about the rising prices of medicines and their prescription drugs. First of all, I must add that the most urgent and important thing I believe we can do here is to enact a meaningful Medicare drug benefit for all seniors. We have it pending, but the Republican leadership will not bring it up and let us vote on it. I think it is a disgrace that we have not acted on this issue before leaving this year. The drug reimportation amendment, offered by Senators Dorgan and Jeffords, which would allow pharmacies and wholesalers to import FDA- approved prescription drugs, was well intentioned and began as a creative way to try to get lower cost drugs to seniors with important safety precautions. If done correctly, this proposal would have been a real help to seniors, many of whom already travel to Canada and Mexico to buy medications at a fraction of their U.S. price. But not every senior in Iowa or in other States is able to travel to Canada or to Mexico to get those drugs. Unfortunately, the provision in the bill now is the product of a closed-door discussion. We were kept out. At the last minute, we got some paper handed to us and we voted on it. I believe the authors have rendered it unworkable with language that will prevent any importation of affordable FDA-approved drugs. In spite of months of bipartisan work to craft this language, the Republican leadership decided abruptly to take a partisan approach that is riddled with loopholes to minimize the impact of the new system. In fact, I think it may be completely unworkable. The language includes a provision that reads as follows: The provisions of this section only become effective if the Secretary demonstrates to the Congress that the implementation of this section will: (1) pose no additional risk to the public health and safety; and (2) result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumers. What does all that language mean? I asked in the conference: What does this mean? How is this to be done? I could get no answer. Unfortunately, the way the language was finally crafted, it may not be possible to ``demonstrate'' that the public will be adequately protected or to ``demonstrate'' that prices will be substantially reduced. The language has other weaknesses in labeling and marketing that I believe undermine its ability both to protect the public from unsafe drugs and to lower costs. In addition, the language crafted by the Republican leadership requires the program to be terminated after 5 years. This is going to have a chilling effect on any private investment necessary to set up the distribution systems and the lab testing facilities necessary to carry out the program and to make sure they are safe. In short, the drug reimportation system in this bill is a charade. I hope the American public will see right through this and recognize it for what it is: a figleaf for the Republican leadership, desperate to disguise the fact that they have done nothing this year to enact a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, which really is the only way we can effectively provide access to affordable prescription drugs for our senior citizens. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield whatever time he needs of that remaining to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of other things I need to say.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I knew it would be objected to. But I am going to do it every day to make the point that her name is unfairly being bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. No one has said she is unqualified, or anything such as that. I can only assume it's that the Republicans figure maybe their nominee will win the Presidency, and all of these will fall by the wayside, and, rather than Bonnie Campbell, we will have somebody else. Maybe that is the way they feel. But that is not the way to run this place. Once you go far down that road, it may be pretty hard to turn back. Times change. There will be a time when there will be a Republican in the White House and the Senate will be Democratic. Do we want to repeat the same thing this year? Do we want to go down that road? Is that what this place has become? If you start it on that side, that is what is going to happen, because when the Democrats take charge, they'll look back at what happened in the year 2000. We shouldn't go down that road. alternative dispute resolution

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I note the language in the bill specifying certain institutions that may receive grants under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. I would ask the distinguished chairman if it is his understanding that the program may continue to be carried out in the same manner as during fiscal year 2000 as authorized by law.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few more points on the hunger relief provisions. The centerpiece of this package would allow states to reform their treatment of cars and trucks when determining whether a household meets the food stamp resource eligibility limits. Rural families need to look for and travel to employment, to get groceries, and for a host of other purposes. Rural roads and seasonal driving hazards make a dependable vehicle a real necessity. Particularly in an era of welfare reform, we should not be forcing households to choose between reliable transportation and needed food assistance, as current rules effectively do. States have recognized this, and a great many of them have greatly reformed their treatment of cars in their TANF-funded programs. This is particularly true of the first car that a household has. Under this provision, states would be free to apply a more realistic TANF policy to a household's primary vehicle even if its policy is to exclude that vehicle completely from evaluations of the family's resources. If the household had an additional car or truck and its TANF policy was stricter than food stamp rules for second vehicles, that additional car or truck should then be evaluated under the usual food stamp procedures. This change in the law gives a state the broadest flexibility to adopt a policy that effects vehicles from any assistance program it operates under the TANF statute. The Secretary has appropriately interpreted similar language already contained within the Food Stamp Act as applying to any program that receives support either from federal TANF block grant funds or from the funds that the TANF statute requires states to spend as ``maintenance of effort'' in order to draw down the TANF block grant. A similar construction is appropriate here. All that would be required is that the program get TANF block grant or maintenance of effort funds that it provide a benefit that can meet the definition of assistance, not necessarily cash assistance. For example, a state could apply the policy it uses in a child care program because HHS's regulations define child care as assistance when provided to non- working families. Once a state decided to apply the policies from a state program to evaluating cars for food stamp purposes, those policies would apply to all food stamp households in the state, whether or not they receive or even are eligible to receive TANF benefits of any kind. The other Hunger Relief Act provision would raise the cap on the food stamp excess shelter cost this March and then adjust it for inflation beginning October 1, 2001. The shelter deduction reflects the commons sense principle that the same money cannot be spent on both housing costs and food. It provides that when a household is spending more than half of its income on food or mortgage, utilities, and similar costs, the amount of those costs that exceed half of its income will be deducted when calculating how much the household can be expected to be able to spend on food. The shelter deduction is also important in rural America, in part because fewer people in rural communities receive housing subsidies and in part because housing costs can easily exceed half of the relatively modest wages that some low-income families receive in rural areas. Unfortunately, the shelter deduction is arbitrarily capped at $300 for households that do not contain an elderly or disabled member. This means that low-income families that are not getting housing subsidies and that are struggling under the burden of extremely high shelter costs are getting unrealistically low food stamp allotments. This provision should help, in particular by making sure that the cap does not lose ground to inflation. I hope that in reauthorization, we can revisit this issue and fully provide fair and equitable treatment to these hard-pressed households the vast majority of which have children.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time is the Senator going to use?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I have done repeatedly every day we have been here for the past few weeks, I want to talk about the stalled nomination of Bonnie Campbell for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I understand the Judiciary Committee of the Senate has again scheduled an executive meeting for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.--I guess to talk about subpoenas for the Department of Energy, and something else. I had my staff do an inquiry, and I found out that Bonnie Campbell's name is not on the agenda. We are in session. We are in session tomorrow. We are going to be in Friday. We are going to be here next week, yet the Judiciary Committee again refuses to allow Bonnie Campbell's name to come out for a vote. It is bottled up. All we want is a vote. Bonnie Campbell has strong bipartisan support. Both Senators from Iowa support her. Senator Grassley, a Republican; I, a Democrat. She has great support from law enforcement and service groups. We just had a big debate and an overwhelming vote last week to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Senator after senator got up to speak about how great it was. It has been a good law. It has done a lot of good. The one person who has been primarily responsible for the implementation of that act since its inception has been the head of the Office of Violence Against Women in the Justice Department. Who has that been? Bonnie Campbell. She has done a great job. She is the former attorney general of the State of Iowa, now standing in glory in her own right. Yet her nomination is bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. I ask again: Why is she being bottled up? Look. In 1992, when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, we had 14 nominations for circuit court judges in 1992 during an election year. Nine of them had hearings. Nine of them were referred, and nine were confirmed, including one in October right before the election. Yet we are told no; Bonnie Campbell's nomination came too late. It is too late when we have a Democratic President and a Republican Senate. But it wasn't too late when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate. Nine hearings; nine referred; nine confirmed in 1992. Here we are in the year 2000: Seven nominated; two had hearings; one referred; and one confirmed. Who is the one who had the hearing that has not been referred? Bonnie Campbell. What a disgrace. What a shame. What a slap in the face to an outstanding individual who has done well in the field of law. I haven't heard anyone--Republican or Democrat--say that she hasn't performed superbly in running the Office of Violence Against Women. Her performance is reflected in the House's 415 to 3 vote to reauthorize the act and the Senate's 95 to 0 vote on that legislation. I will, as I do every day, ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court, that her nomination be considered by the Senate immediately following the conclusion of action on the pending matter, that the debate on the nomination be limited to 2 hours equally divided, and that a vote on her nomination occur immediately following the use or yielding back of that time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. We always run out of time around here when we get into a good debate. The Bonnie Campbell Nomination

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I stand here today to pay tribute to a good friend, Mel Carnahan, Governor of Missouri, and express my sorrow at the loss of his son Randy and his longtime aide, Chris Sifford. I had known Mel for a long time. I have followed his career with pride and admiration as his neighbor to the North. Mel's service to the State of Missouri spans four decades and even more elected offices. He started out as a municipal judge in his hometown of Rolla at the age of 26. He served in the Missouri State Legislature. He was State treasurer and Lieutenant Governor, and in 1992 became the 51st Governor of Missouri. Like many of my colleagues, I had the privilege of campaigning with Mel this past year. As I watched Mel Carnahan on the trail and watched him talk with the people of Missouri and listen to their concerns and their hopes to gain their confidence and trust, I was reminded of something Adlai Stevenson once said: Every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of things that are to be. Mel Carnahan was one of those men, and as Governor of Missouri, he had a vision for his State and for our country. We saw it in his work on education. We saw it in his work on Missouri's economy. He created thousands of jobs and moved some 100,000 people from welfare to work. We saw it in his work on crime and children's health insurance and so many other issues, how he stood up to the gun industry and stood strong for those who have the deck stacked against them. He had a vision for this Nation which he took into his Senate race. He believed, as Hubert Humphrey stated, that the measure of government is in how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick and the needy. That is why he wanted to come to Washington. This was his vision. Its very urgency makes it harder to accept the fact that he was taken from us before he could help make it a reality. His death is a loss for all of us in Congress who would have had the honor of working with him. It is a loss for the people of Missouri who would have had the privilege of being represented by him. It is a loss for the people of this Nation who would have had the good fortune of being served by him. We cannot let our sorrow overwhelm us. We cannot let our sadness become bitterness, despair, or regret. That would not be a fitting tribute to Mel Carnahan. Rather, we owe it to him, to his country, and to his family to take up the torch of his life's work and to carry it on. We owe it to ourselves to let his memory be our solace, his record our guide, and his legacy our inspiration, to let the life of this good and decent man continue to light our way. That is the best and enduring memorial for our friend Mel Carnahan. Earlier this year, I was flying in that very plane with Mel and his son Randy at the controls. Being a pilot myself, we talked a lot about flying. It was a night flight. We talked about the aircraft. I talked to Randy about the different instrumentation he had on his aircraft. Randy was a very qualified pilot. He knew what he was doing. Mel was, too. Mel had been taking flying lessons and had hoped to complete them at some time but had to interrupt them for his campaign. For me, it makes the loss even so much more poignant and tragic since just a couple of months ago I was on that very plane with them. We do not know exactly what happened. Right now what went wrong is really of no consequence. What is of consequence is that we have lost three good lives in that tragic accident in Missouri. My heart and my prayers are with Jean, his very lovely and very dedicated wife, their children Russ, Robin, and Tom, and with the family and friends of Chris Sifford who also lost his life in that tragic accident.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Women's Health Research Career Enhancement Act of 2000. This legislation addresses a critical shortage of qualified clinician researchers available to investigate the diseases and conditions that primarily affect women. 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. More can and must be done to guarantee that women have the quality care they deserve. This includes making sure that qualified researchers are out there leading the search for cures and treatments. In 1985, the United States Public Health Task Force on Women's Health Issues concluded that women's health care was getting short shrift by the lack of research focus on women's health concerns. Since then we have made good progress to expand women's health research, but more needs to be done. In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been slow and ineffective in implementing a policy to include women in research study populations. At the urging of myself and others, and in response to passage of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, the NIH began to take more comprehensive measures to increase research on health problems affecting women. And more recently, at my request, along with Senators Olympia Snowe and Barbara Mikulski, and Representative Harry Waxman (D-CA), the GAO published a report last May assessing the NIH's progress on conducting research on women's health in the past decade. The GAO's report found that while NIH has made significant progress in implementing a strengthened policy on including women in clinical research, they have failed to fully analyze clinical data on women's health. It is clear we can and must do more to advance a comprehensive women's health agenda. A growing body of evidence is emerging that demonstrates significant differences between men and women and how they get sick and how they react to potential treatments. Women and men metabolize food, alcohol, medication and environmental toxins differently. And certain diseases and conditions disproportionately affect women. For example, women comprise 80% of those suffering from osteoporosis. Seventy-five percent of those afflicted with autoimmune diseases are women. And although we have made significant progress, we are still fighting the terrible epidemic of breast cancer in this country, a disease that strikes 1 out of every 8 American women. Women everywhere will benefit through more and better scientific research on the diseases and conditions that affect them. And our scientific enterprise will reap maximum returns when it involves teams of investigators with expertise in various disciplines. A comprehensive, targeted approach is necessary to develop a multi- disciplinary cadre of researchers with the interest and expertise to broaden the field of women's health research. In addition, mentoring between junior and senior scientists is important to promoting an inclusive and diverse research environment. Mentoring relationships can lead to the retention and advancement of talented scientists from all segments of the population and enhance our investment in medical research. Mr. President, my legislation authorizes two important initiatives to expand the number of qualified investigators in women's health research by providing improved career development opportunities through the National Institutes of Health (NIH): First, the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Program--will support the career development of junior women's health scientists by providing new opportunities to improve their research skills in interdisciplinary settings. The NIH, through the Office of Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research institutions to pair junior investigators with seasoned senior investigators, who will mentor them for 2-5 years. Second, the Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers--will help build the next generation of investigators in obstetrics and gynecology by giving clinicians the experience they need to become women's health scientists. The NIH, through the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research institutions and hospitals for the training of new women's health researchers. The Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers program and the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health grant program have already stimulated women's health research across a variety of disciplines. Authorizing and expanding these programs will speed breakthroughs in women's health research by building and improving the network of scientific investigators expert in the diseases and conditions that affect women. Mr. President, I have a long tradition of supporting research and specifically women's health research both as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. This year we will provide an unprecedented, $2.7 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, keeping us well on track towards our goal of doubling the NIH budget over 5 years. But all the funding in the world will do us no good if we don't have talented investigators ready and able to take on the challenge of finding the cures and treatments for the diseases that afflict us. We must do more to make sure we grow and strengthen a diverse network of our best and brightest clinicians and scientists to keep pace with our increased investment in medical research. The bill I am introducing today will help to do just that. It has the support of the National Institutes of Health, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Women's Health Research Coalition and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Women's Health Research Career Enhancement Act of 2000. This legislation addresses a critical shortage of qualified clinician researchers available to investigate the diseases and conditions that primarily affect women. 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. More can and must be done to guarantee that women have the quality care they deserve. This includes making sure that qualified researchers are out there leading the search for cures and treatments. In 1985, the United States Public Health Task Force on Women's Health Issues concluded that women's health care was getting short shrift by the lack of research focus on women's health concerns. Since then we have made good progress to expand women's health research, but more needs to be done. In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been slow and ineffective in implementing a policy to include women in research study populations. At the urging of myself and others, and in response to passage of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, the NIH began to take more comprehensive measures to increase research on health problems affecting women. And more recently, at my request, along with Senators Olympia Snowe and Barbara Mikulski, and Representative Harry Waxman (D-CA), the GAO published a report last May assessing the NIH's progress on conducting research on women's health in the past decade. The GAO's report found that while NIH has made significant progress in implementing a strengthened policy on including women in clinical research, they have failed to fully analyze clinical data on women's health. It is clear we can and must do more to advance a comprehensive women's health agenda. A growing body of evidence is emerging that demonstrates significant differences between men and women and how they get sick and how they react to potential treatments. Women and men metabolize food, alcohol, medication and environmental toxins differently. And certain diseases and conditions disproportionately affect women. For example, women comprise 80% of those suffering from osteoporosis. Seventy-five percent of those afflicted with autoimmune diseases are women. And although we have made significant progress, we are still fighting the terrible epidemic of breast cancer in this country, a disease that strikes 1 out of every 8 American women. Women everywhere will benefit through more and better scientific research on the diseases and conditions that affect them. And our scientific enterprise will reap maximum returns when it involves teams of investigators with expertise in various disciplines. A comprehensive, targeted approach is necessary to develop a multi- disciplinary cadre of researchers with the interest and expertise to broaden the field of women's health research. In addition, mentoring between junior and senior scientists is important to promoting an inclusive and diverse research environment. Mentoring relationships can lead to the retention and advancement of talented scientists from all segments of the population and enhance our investment in medical research. Mr. President, my legislation authorizes two important initiatives to expand the number of qualified investigators in women's health research by providing improved career development opportunities through the National Institutes of Health (NIH): First, the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Program--will support the career development of junior women's health scientists by providing new opportunities to improve their research skills in interdisciplinary settings. The NIH, through the Office of Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research institutions to pair junior investigators with seasoned senior investigators, who will mentor them for 2-5 years. Second, the Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers--will help build the next generation of investigators in obstetrics and gynecology by giving clinicians the experience they need to become women's health scientists. The NIH, through the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research institutions and hospitals for the training of new women's health researchers. The Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers program and the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health grant program have already stimulated women's health research across a variety of disciplines. Authorizing and expanding these programs will speed breakthroughs in women's health research by building and improving the network of scientific investigators expert in the diseases and conditions that affect women. Mr. President, I have a long tradition of supporting research and specifically women's health research both as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. This year we will provide an unprecedented, $2.7 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, keeping us well on track towards our goal of doubling the NIH budget over 5 years. But all the funding in the world will do us no good if we don't have talented investigators ready and able to take on the challenge of finding the cures and treatments for the diseases that afflict us. We must do more to make sure we grow and strengthen a diverse network of our best and brightest clinicians and scientists to keep pace with our increased investment in medical research. The bill I am introducing today will help to do just that. It has the support of the National Institutes of Health, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Women's Health Research Coalition and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a staff member, Sally Phillips, be granted the privilege of the floor for debate during consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Technology for All Americans Act. This Act will maximize our country's potential by helping to close the Digital Divide for people with disabilities. In doing so, it will increase their independence and self-sufficiency and further strengthen our economy and society by enabling the greatest possible number of us to contribute our abilities. As we celebrate the Americans with Disabilities Act's 10th Anniversary, we are entering a new millennium; one that will be defined by technology. But technology can be a double-edged sword for people with disabilities, who continue to fight for the freedom to live independently. If the Internet and other technologies are accessible, they will offer people with disabilities unprecedented opportunities for independence and self-sufficiency. But if they are not accessible, they simply will create new barriers to full participation of people with disabilities in our society and our economy. Although new technologies have improved the lives of many Americans with disabilities, there remains a significant ``Digital Divide'' between Americans with and without disabilities. Although people with disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities to say that the Internet has improved their lives significantly, they are barely one-quarter as likely to use the Internet and less than half as likely to have access to a computer at home. The Technology for All Americans Act will begin to bridge this gap. The Act provides incentives for public and private researchers to use universal design and accessibility principles in new technologies, and to develop technologies to eliminate functional barriers to full independence for people with disabilities. It will increase public access to technology by providing grants to States to make public libraries, including those in elementary and secondary schools, technology accessible. It will increase the development and use of accessible technology by providing grants to colleges and universities to establish model curricula incorporating the design and use of accessible technology into academic and professional programs. And it will help children with disabilities maximize their potential in school and after graduation by ensuring their access to technology. In a nutshell, this Act will help ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in society. But, this act is not just for people with disabilities. It is, as it's name says, for all Americans. When people with disabilities succeed in school, join the workforce, and participate in day-to-day life, we all benefit from their abilities. History also demonstrates that research on accessible technology benefits everyone. How many people know that the typewriter was invented for an Italian countess who was blind? In 1990, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, which I introduced, required closed captioning for most television sets so that people who are deaf could watch TV. But today millions of people who are not deaf use closed captioning at home, at work, at gyms, and at sports bars, to name a few. And, millions of people use voice-activated technology at work or in car phones and cell phones. That technology also was intended primarily for people with disabilities. This trend will accelerate as the Technology Revolution moves forward. The technologies that make things accessible for people with disabilities have applications for all of us. More and more each day, every American's ability to participate in society is determined by how well they are able to use technology. This Act will help us take the greatest advantage of technology for the benefit of the greatest number of Americans. This must be one of our priorities as we move into the new millennium. So I ask my colleagues, people with disabilities, educators, technology experts, and others who are interested to share their ideas with me about this bill and about the issue of making technology accessible to every American, so that next Congress we can ensure that every American has access to the tools that will shape our future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If I might reciprocate, I thank the chairman and Senator Levin, the ranking member, for including this in the bill. These were hard workers. They were good people. They work for a contract employer, not the Department of Defense. With this change, it makes it clear they are covered also. I thank them both.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this conference report contains a number of provisions of great importance to our troops and our veterans. First, I am very glad that one of the top priorities of this conference report is improving the military health care system. The expansion of TRICARE, the military health care system, to Medicare-eligible retirees provides a permanent comprehensive health care benefit to military retirees, regardless of age. All military retirees and their families will now be able to remain in the TRICARE health program for life. At least as important, military retirees will now have complete prescription drug coverage. With this new benefit, there is an even stronger case for Congress passing a Medicare prescription drug plan for all seniors this year before we go home. I am also pleased that this bill provides our troops a significant pay raise as well as supplementary benefits for troops on food stamps and increased WIC nutritional support for troops overseas. These are issues on which I have worked for several years on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I am especially pleased that we have overcome significant opposition among the House majority to provide compensation to some of those who were harmed by dangerous conditions at our nuclear weapons plants. I am sure that by now all my colleagues are aware that many of our citizens were exposed to radioactive and other hazardous materials at nuclear weapons production plants in the United States. While working to protect our national security, thousands of workers were subjected to severe hazards, sometimes without their knowledge or consent. I would like to address in more detail another provision that is important for former workers at our nuclear weapons facilities. The dangers at these plants thrived in the darkness of Government secrecy. Public oversight was especially weak at a factory for assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown, IA. I first found out about the nuclear weapons work there from a constituent letter from a former worker, Robert Anderson. He was concerned that his non-Hodgkins lymphoma was caused by exposures at the plant. But when I asked the Department of Energy about the plant, at first they denied that any nuclear weapons work took place there. The constituent's story was only confirmed when my staff saw a promotional video from the contractor at the site that mentioned the nuclear weapons work. The nuclear weapons production plants were run not by the Defense Department but by the Atomic Energy Commission, which has since been made part of the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has since acknowledged what happened, and is now actively trying to help the current and former workers in Iowa and elsewhere by reviewing records, helping them get medical testing and care, and seeking compensation. I compliment Secretary Richardson for his foresight and for taking this matter very seriously and making sure that the Department of Energy is forthcoming in regard to getting testing and care and compensation. I was pleased this past January to host Energy Secretary Richardson at a meeting with former workers and community members near the plant in Iowa. The Department specifically acknowledges that the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant assembled and disassembled nuclear weapons from 1947- 1975. And their work has helped uncover potential health concerns at the plant, such as explosions around depleted uranium that created clouds of radioactive dust, and workers' exposure to high explosives that literally turned their skin yellow. And while the Department of Energy is investigating what happened and seeking solutions, the Army is stuck, still mired in a nonsensical policy. It is the policy of the Department of Defense to ``neither confirm nor deny'' the presence of nuclear weapons were assembled in Iowa without admitting that there were nuclear weapons in Iowa. So they write vaguely about ``AEC activities,'' but don't say what those activities were. There have been no nuclear weapons at the Iowa site since 1975, but it is well known that weapons were there before that. The DOE says the weapons were there. A promotional video of the Army contractor at the site even says the weapons were there. But the Army can't say it. What this does is, it send the wrong signal to the former workers. These workers swore oaths never to reveal what they did at the plant. And many of them are still reluctant to talk. They are worried that their cancers or other health problems may be caused by their work at the plant. But they feel that they can't even tell their doctors or site cleanup crews they worked there or what the tasks were they did. They don't want to violate the oaths of secrecy they took. One worker at the Iowa plant said recently: There's still stuff buried out there that we don't know where it is. And we know people who do know, but they will not say anything yet because they are still afraid of repercussions. Instead of helping these workers speak out, the Army has forced them to keep their silence. I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision I offered to help these workers. It is narrowly targeted to require the Defense Department, in consultation with the Energy Department, to review their classification and security policies to ensure they do not prevent or discourage workers at nuclear weapons facilities from discussing possible exposures with their health care providers and other appropriate officials. The provision specifically recognizes that this must be done within national security constraints. It also directs the Department to contact people who may have been exposed to radioactive or hazardous substances at former Defense Department nuclear weapons facilities, including the Iowa plant. The Department is to notify them of any exposures and of how they can discuss the exposures with their health care providers and other appropriate officials without violating security or classification procedures. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the conference committee for joining with me in a colloquy to clarify that this provision applies to all workers at such facilities, and not just DOD personnel. I am pleased we are passing this provision today. I thank the managers of the bill for including this provision and for the fine work they have done on all aspects of this bill. Lastly, I am very concerned about the recent upsurge of violence in the Middle East. I strongly support the efforts of President Clinton and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to negotiate a cease-fire. This cycle of killings and destruction must end so there can be a return to the negotiating table to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member to engage in a brief colloquy on section 1078 of the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report regarding secrecy and worker health. This originally passed the Senate as an amendment I sponsored that was agreed to by all parties. The amendment referred to workers at former nuclear weapons facilities. The provision in the conference report was rewritten, and now defines these workers to be ``employees and former employees of the Department of Defense'' at defense nuclear weapons facilities. However, at least one such facility, the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, is owned by the Defense Department but operated by a contractor. Thus virtually all employees at the facility were and are employees of the contractor and not directly of the Department of Defense. Is it the understanding of my colleagues that this provision is intended to refer to all employees at such facilities, including those employed directly by the Department of Defense and indirectly through contractors?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Taxpayer Protection and Contractor Integrity Act. This legislation, which was introduced concurrently by Rep. Peter DeFazio in the House, is intended to crack down on fraud and abuse in government contracts. It would say to federal government contractors that have been convicted or had civil judgement rendered against them at least three times for procurement fraud and related offenses: you do not deserve further taxpayer support; you are suspended from new contracts for three years. Three strikes and you're out. A recent report by the General Accounting Office on procurement fraud by the 100 largest Department of Defense contractors during the years 1995-1999 found: 8 criminal cases in which contractors pled guilty and paid fines totaling $66 million, and 95 civil cases, including 94 settlements and one judgment, in which awards totaled $368 million. The offenses included overcharging, kickbacks, defective products, procurement fraud, misuse/diversion of government furnished materials, cost/labor mischarging, and others. A number of companies, including some of the largest DOD contractors, had several criminal convictions or civil judgments for similar offenses over a few years. This clearly demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. But the Department of Defense continued to conduct business with contractors even after these companies had committed multiple frauds against the government. Not one of the top military contractors guilty of procurement fraud was barred from future contracts. According to a recent Associated Press analysis, there are 1,020 contractors government-wide that were sued or prosecuted for fraud in the past five years. Of these, 737 remain eligible for future contracts. It is disgraceful that the Pentagon and other agencies seem to hear and see no evil in the criminal fraud committed by contractors. Now it's up to Congress to step in and start cracking down on big contractors who have been swindling the federal government out of billions of dollars. I am hopeful that the bill we're introducing today will force all contractors to play by the rules and stop ripping off American taxpayers. Under current law, a contracting officer is required to make a determination regarding the integrity and responsibility of a potential contractor prior to awarding a new contract. In making this determination, prior convictions can be taken into account, but even with several convictions an individual or company may still be granted a contract award. The bill I introduced would require contractors to disclose the number of convictions or civil judgments, the nature of the offense, and whether any fines, penalties, or damages were assessed. Any contractor who has three or more convictions or civil judgements for fraud and similar offenses related to government contracts would be prohibited from receiving future contracts. Existing contracts would not be impacted. The prohibition on future contracts would last three years. If, during that period, the contractor demonstrates a satisfactory record of ethics and integrity by avoiding additional criminal convictions, the contractor may become eligible for future federal contracts. The bill also allows a waiver by the President in the interest of national security or to prevent serious injury to the government. Note that the bill does not prevent debarment under current procedures for fewer than three violations or broader consideration of ethics under the proposed OMB regulations. But recognizing that some agencies will not use these discretionary procedures, the bill sets a firm limit. The bill was crafted much like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which made life in prison mandatory for criminals convicted of their third federal felony. That's why we sometimes call this the ``Three strikes and you're out'' bill. This bill, however, is much softer, as the suspension can be lifted after three years. We've made a commitment in this country to be tough on crime. That resolve should apply to federal contractors too. It is time to stop rewarding criminal contractors with American taxpayers' hard- earned dollars.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. May I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I agree.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Vermont for yielding me this time to voice my support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It is an important act that should be passed forthwith. I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994, and I am an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in my State of Iowa and across the Nation. Iowa has received more than $8 million through grants of VAWA. These grants fund the domestic violence hotline and keep the doors open at domestic violence shelters, such as the Family Violence Center in Des Moines. VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual assault victims just this year, and more than 20,559 Iowa students this year have received information about rape prevention through this Federal funding. The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that State and community efforts are indeed working. But this fight is far from over. The reauthorization of this important legislation will allow these efforts to continue without having to worry that this funding will be lost from year to year. I commend the Democratic and Republican leadership for working to get this bill done before we adjourn. I believe my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are suffering from a split personality. They are willing to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, but they are not willing to put a judge on the Federal bench who knows more about this law, has done more to implement this law than any other person in this country, and that is Bonnie J. Campbell, who right now heads the Office of Violence Against Women that was set up by this law in 1994. In fact, Bonnie Campbell has been the head of this office since its inception, and the figures bear out the fact that this office is working, and it is working well. Bonnie Campbell's name was submitted to the Senate in March. She had her hearing in May. All the paperwork is done. Yet she is bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, the Senator from Alabama appeared on the CNN news show ``Burden of Proof'' to discuss the status of judicial nominations. I want to address some of the statements he made on that show. Senator Sessions said Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience. The truth: Bonnie Campbell's qualifications are exemplary. The American Bar Association has given her their stamp of approval. She has had a long history in law starting in 1984 with her private practice in Des Moines where she worked on cases involving medical malpractice, employment discrimination, personal injury, real estate, and family law. She was then elected attorney general of Iowa, the first woman to ever hold that office. In that position, she gained high marks from all ends of the political spectrum as someone who was strongly committed to enforcing the law to reducing crime and protecting consumers. As I said, in 1995, she led the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act as head of that office under the Justice Department. Her strong performance in this role is reflected in last month's House vote to reauthorize VAWA--415-3. Senator Sessions from Alabama says she has no courtroom experience. I will mention a few of the judicial nominees who have been confirmed who were criticized for having little or no courtroom experience. Randall Rader--my friend from Utah might recognize that name--was appointed to the U.S. Claims Court in 1988 and then to the Federal circuit in 1990. Before 1988, Mr. Rader had never practiced law, had only been out of law school for 11 years, and his only post-law-school employment had been with Congress as counsel to Senator Hatch from Utah. Yet today, he sits on a Federal bench. But Senator Sessions from Alabama says Bonnie Campbell has no courtroom experience; that is why she does not deserve to be on the Federal court. Pasco Bowman serves on the Eighth Circuit. He was confirmed in 1983. Before his nomination--

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? I am not criticizing Randall Rader.

Mr. HARKIN. I am saying here is a guy on the court, probably doing a great job for all I know, but he didn't have any courtroom experience either.