Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on file.

Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we really started questioning this because of some of the information the Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New Mexico said about my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. I am introducing today legislation designed to address the extensive problems that have been caused by the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and to make appropriate revisions to the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program in the Clean Air Act. It has become absolutely clear that MTBE has to go. Even in Iowa, where we are not required to have oxygenated fuels or RFG, a recent survey found a surprising level of water contamination with MTBE. So my legislation requires a phased reduction in the use of MTBE in motor fuel and then a prohibition on MTBE in fuel of fuel additives beginning three years after enactment. Retail pumps dispensing gasoline with MTBE would be labeled so that consumers know what they are buying. And in order to facilitate an orderly phase-out of MTBE, EPA may establish a credit trading system for the dispensing and sale of MTBE. My legislation recognizes the benefits that have been provided by the oxygen content requirement in the reformulated gasoline program. Oxygen added to gasoline reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, toxic compounds and fine particulate matter. So my legislation continues the oxygen content requirement, but it does allow for certain actions that would alleviate concerns about whether alternative oxygen additives will be available after MTBE is removed from gasoline. The bill allows for averaging of the oxygen content upon a proper showing and it also would allow for a temporary reduction or waiver of the minimum oxygen content requirement in very limited circumstances. The legislation also ensures that all health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program are maintained and improved. The bill includes very strong provisions to ensure that there is no backsliding in air quality and health benefits from cleaner burning reformulated gasoline. The petroleum companies would also be prohibited from taking the pollutants from gasoline in some areas and putting them back into gasoline in other areas of the country that are not subject to the more stringent air quality standards. Those are referred to as the anti- dumping protections. My bill places tighter restrictions on highly polluting aromatic and olefin content of reformulated gasoline. My legislation also recognizes the important role of renewable fuels in improving our environment, building energy security for our nation, and increasing farm income, economic growth and job creation, especially in rural areas. The legislation creates a renewable content requirement for gasoline and for diesel fuel. Overall, this legislation will get MTBE out of gasoline, maintain and improve the air quality and health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program and the Clean Air Act, and put our nation on a solid path toward greater use of renewable fuels. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of my legislation be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. I am introducing today legislation designed to address the extensive problems that have been caused by the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and to make appropriate revisions to the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program in the Clean Air Act. It has become absolutely clear that MTBE has to go. Even in Iowa, where we are not required to have oxygenated fuels or RFG, a recent survey found a surprising level of water contamination with MTBE. So my legislation requires a phased reduction in the use of MTBE in motor fuel and then a prohibition on MTBE in fuel of fuel additives beginning three years after enactment. Retail pumps dispensing gasoline with MTBE would be labeled so that consumers know what they are buying. And in order to facilitate an orderly phase-out of MTBE, EPA may establish a credit trading system for the dispensing and sale of MTBE. My legislation recognizes the benefits that have been provided by the oxygen content requirement in the reformulated gasoline program. Oxygen added to gasoline reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, toxic compounds and fine particulate matter. So my legislation continues the oxygen content requirement, but it does allow for certain actions that would alleviate concerns about whether alternative oxygen additives will be available after MTBE is removed from gasoline. The bill allows for averaging of the oxygen content upon a proper showing and it also would allow for a temporary reduction or waiver of the minimum oxygen content requirement in very limited circumstances. The legislation also ensures that all health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program are maintained and improved. The bill includes very strong provisions to ensure that there is no backsliding in air quality and health benefits from cleaner burning reformulated gasoline. The petroleum companies would also be prohibited from taking the pollutants from gasoline in some areas and putting them back into gasoline in other areas of the country that are not subject to the more stringent air quality standards. Those are referred to as the anti- dumping protections. My bill places tighter restrictions on highly polluting aromatic and olefin content of reformulated gasoline. My legislation also recognizes the important role of renewable fuels in improving our environment, building energy security for our nation, and increasing farm income, economic growth and job creation, especially in rural areas. The legislation creates a renewable content requirement for gasoline and for diesel fuel. Overall, this legislation will get MTBE out of gasoline, maintain and improve the air quality and health benefits of the reformulated gasoline program and the Clean Air Act, and put our nation on a solid path toward greater use of renewable fuels. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of my legislation be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and my colleague from Alaska in a brief colloquy concerning the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program that is funded again this year in the Defense appropriations bill. Would research proposals related to alcoholism be appropriate for consideration under the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senator from Oregon finishes his remarks, the Senator from Iowa be recognized to make some remarks.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the ADA, of course, ultimately is about our children. They will be the first generation to grow up with the ADA--the first generation in which children with and without disabilities play together on the playground, learn together in school, hang out together at the mall and the movie theater, and go out together for pizza. These children who will grow up as classmates and friends and neighbors will now see each other as neighbors and coworkers--no longer segregated. That is what the ADA is about. It has opened up new worlds for people with disabilities--where people with disabilities are participating more and more in their communities, living fuller lives as students, as coworkers, as taxpayers, as consumers, voters, and neighbors. But we must never forget that prohibiting discrimination is not the same as ensuring equal opportunity. President Johnson understood this when he said: ``[Y]ou cannot shackle men and women for centuries, then bring them to the starting line of a race and say, `You see, we're giving you an equal chance.'" That is why we all work so hard for the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act because we had to set the stage to change the employment rate for people with disabilities. That is why we all work so hard to defend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, because there is no equal opportunity without education. I am proud that this morning President Clinton announced a new effort by the Federal Government to open up an additional 100,000 jobs in the Federal Government for people with disabilities. That is leadership. I thank President Clinton for providing that leadership. Again, that is why we have to fight against genetic discrimination. That is why we have to add people with disabilities to the Hate Crimes Act that passed the Senate, and to make sure it becomes law. That is why we have to fight to make sure we don't lose in the Supreme Court what we gained in Congress. There is a case now pending before the Supreme Court in which a State has argued that title II of the ADA which applies to State governments should be held unconstitutional because the Federal Government does not have the power to enforce the ADA against the States in the way other civil rights laws are. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, applies to all the States and State governments. Now a State is arguing that the ADA, a civil rights law for people with disabilities, should not apply to States. They are saying: Don't worry. The State says: Leave it to us. We will make sure that people aren't subject to employment discrimination. We will make sure that people aren't forced to live inside institutions or carried up the steps in order to get into the local courthouse. Some of us remember after the 1964 civil rights bill was passed that States were arguing the same thing: Leave it to the States; they will take care of civil rights; we don't need the Federal Government coming in. What I think we are forgetting is that this is a civil rights law that covers the citizens of America. We are all in this together. We are talking about citizens'--Federal, national--constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. It is up to this Federal Congress to ensure that citizens with disabilities get that equal treatment. That is why we have title II of the ADA. In sign language, there is a wonderful sign for America. It is this: This is the sign for America, all of the fingers put together, joining the hands in a circle. That describes America for all. We are all together. We are not separated out. We are all within one circle; a family--the deaf sign. It is not separate and apart. It is not one State and another State when it comes to civil rights and ensuring equal protection of the law. We will not let the Supreme Court rewrite history and erase civil rights--the national civil rights for people with disabilities. Finally, we have to close the digital divide to make sure that people with disabilities have full access to the new technologies. Last night, Vice President Gore held a reception at the Vice President's house for literally hundreds and hundreds of people with disabilities from all over America. It was a great event to celebrate the 10th anniversary. In one tent, they set up a wide variety of new technologies to assist people with disabilities. I was particularly taken with one new device that had a cathode ray tube, CRT. It was hooked up to a PC. There was a little device under the net, a CRT that looked up at your eyes. You sat there for a second and it calibrated it. With your eye movement alone, you could turn on lights, turn off lights, make phone calls, talk to people, type letters, get on the Internet, only by moving your eyes. Think about what that means for people who have Lou Gehrig's disease or severe cerebral palsy. There are a lot of disabled people who can't do anything but move their eyes. But their mind is perfect. One perfect example that Vice President Gore always uses is Stephen Hawkins, perhaps the smartest individual in the world, who is fully immobile because of his disability. Yet here is a machine that will allow him to more rapidly access information and to write his wonderful books about the universe. That is what I mean when I say we ought to close the digital divide because there is so much out there that can help people with disabilities. Lastly, I say that the next step we have to do is fight and win against the continued segregation of people with disabilities from their own communities. That is why we have to move forward on the bill called MiCASSA, S. 1935, a bill that is pending in the Senate right now--the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act--a bipartisan bill that will eliminate institutional bias in the Federal Medicaid program and give people with disabilities and the elderly a real choice to live in their communities. Right now, Medicaid is biased toward institutionalization. Why shouldn't we give a person with a disability the right to decide where he or she wants to live and how they want to live? Let them live in their own home, in their own community settings. That is what S. 1935 is about. The disability community all over this country understands personal attendants are sorely needed. No individual should be forced into an institution just to receive reimbursement for services that can be effectively and efficiently delivered in the home of the community. Individuals must be empowered to exercise real choice in selecting long-term services and supports that meet their unique needs and allow them to be independent. Federal and State Medicaid policies should be responsive to and not impede an individual's choice in selecting services and supports. This bill eliminates the bias toward institutional care. It would help deliver services and supports consistent with the principle that people with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated setting appropriate to meeting that individual's unique needs. In last year's Olmstead decision, the Supreme Court found that to the extent that Medicaid dollars are used to pay for a person's long-term care, that person has a civil right to receive those services in the most integrative settings. Therefore, we in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet the financial costs associated with serving people with disabilities who want to leave institutions and live in the community. MiCASSA, as the bill is known, S. 1935, will provide that help. A lot of people say this will cost money. Actually, it will save money. Medicaid spending on long-term care in 1997 totaled $56 billion, but only $13.5 billion was spent on home and community-based services. That $13.5 billion paid for the care of almost 2 million people. In contrast, the $42.5 billion we spent on institutional care paid for just a little over 1 million people. The average annual cost of institutional care for people with disabilities is more than double the average annual cost of providing home and community-based services. Right now, all across the country, hundreds of thousands of people are providing unpaid support to sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, to allow them to remain in the community. Yet when they turn to the current long-term care system for relief, all too often all they can do is add their name to a very long waiting list. That is not right. That is not just. That is not fair. These family care givers are sacrificing their own employment opportunities and costing the country millions in taxable income. Lastly, I take a moment to remark on the surplus. Lately that is all we are hearing about is how much surplus we will have over the next 10 years. I hear now it is up to $2 trillion and counting. We have some very important decisions to make about what we do with the surplus. Everyone is lining up--tax breaks here, tax cuts here, tax breaks here, for business, for corporations, for this group, for that group--all lining up to get some of that surplus. I believe we have to make some important decisions. I believe we have to use that money to pay down the debt, shore up Social Security, make sure that our seniors get what they need under Medicare. With all these groups lining up to get a piece of the action on the surplus, I am asking: What about the disability community? What about the Americans all over our country who want to live in their own communities, who want supportive services in their homes, who want personal assistance services so they can go to work every day? I believe we should use some of that surplus to make sure that all Americans have the equal right to live in the community--not just in spirit, but in reality. As I said, our present Medicaid policy has an institutional bias. We need to use some of this surplus to get people in their own homes and communities. There may be some transitional cost, but we know later on when these people start going to work, when their families and the family care givers who are at home now and underemployed, are employed, when they go to work they are working, making money, paying taxes. Yes, when we are talking about what we are going to do with that surplus, let's not forget we have millions of Americans far too long segregated, far too long kept out of the main stream of society, far too long denied their rights as American citizens to full integration in our society. It is time we do the right thing. It is time when we make decisions about the surplus, we use some of that to make sure that people with disabilities are able to live and work and travel as they want. ADA may stand for the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it stands for more than that. It really stands for the American dream for all. In closing, as I said earlier, my brother, Frank, passed away last month. I miss him now and I will miss him forever. He was a wonderful brother to me. He was a great friend. He was my great inspiration. He was proud of what the ADA meant for people with disabilities. For 10 years he and millions of people across our country lived out its possibilities. So I thank my brother, Frank. I thank everyone else in the entire disability community who was an inspiration for me, who worked so hard for the Americans with Disabilities Act. I include in that many of my fellow Senators and Representatives. This was never a partisan bill. It is not now a partisan bill. It will never be a partisan bill. Too many good people on both sides of the aisle worked hard. Senator Weicker, who led the charge early on, before I even got to the Senate; Senator Dole, who worked so hard, so long, to make sure we got ADA through; Boyden Grey, Counsel to the President who worked with us every step of the way; Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, what a giant he was, hung in there, day after day, working to make sure we got it through. On our side of the aisle, Senator Kennedy, who made sure we had all the hearings, got the people there, made the record, to ensure that ADA was on solid ground; Tony Coehlo from the House of Representatives, and Representative Steny Hoyer in the House; Congressman Steve Bartlett, another great giant, Republican leader in the House at that time, later on became mayor of Dallas. He was there this morning, too. At that time, there weren't Democrat and there weren't Republicans. We were all in that same boat together, and we were all pulling together. We were, as I said earlier, Mr. President--the deaf sign for Americans is this (signing)--all of us together, fingers intertwined, all of us in that same family circle. That is what ADA is about. It is about this deaf sign. We are all in this together. We want to make sure the ADA really does stand for the American dream for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senate to do something that I did 10 years ago; that is, to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act by doing what I did on the floor 10 years ago. I will do a little bit of sign language with respect to that. (Signing.) Mr. President, what I just said in sign language was that 10 years ago I stood on the floor of the Senate and spoke in sign language when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The reason I did that was because my brother Frank was my inspiration for all of my work here in Congress on disability law. That was the reason that I became the chief sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I further said that I was sorry to say that my brother passed away last month. Over the last 10 years, he always said me that he was sorry the ADA was not there for him when he was growing up, but that he was happy that it was here now for young people so they would have a better future. Mr. President, we do celebrate today the tenth anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which has taken its place as one of the greatest civil rights laws in our history. When you think about it, ten years ago, on July 25, 1990, a person with a disability saw an ad in the paper for a job for which that person was qualified, and went down to the business to interview for the job. The prospective employer could look at that person and say: we don't hire people like you, get out of here. On July 25, 1990, that person was alone. The courthouse door was closed. There was no recourse for that person because there was no ban on discrimination because of disability. We banned it on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, but not disability. So on July 25, 1990, a person with a disability held the short end of the stick. But one day later, on July 26, 1990, the courthouse doors were opened. A person with a disability could now go down to that courthouse and enforce his or her civil rights. On July 26th, that one person who was alone the day before became 54 million people, and now that short end of the stick became a powerful club by which a disabled American could defend his or her rights. Ten years ago, we as a Nation committed ourselves to the principle that a disability does not eliminate a person's right to participate in the cultural, economic, educational, political and social mainstream. Ten years ago, we said no to exclusion, no to dependence, no to segregation. We said yes to inclusion, yes to independence, and yes to integration in our society to people with disabilities. That is what the ADA is all about. For me, the ADA, as I have just said, was a lot about my brother Frank. He lost his hearing at an early age. Then he was taken from his home, his family and his community and sent across the State to the Iowa State school for the deaf. People often referred to it as the school for the ``deaf and dumb.'' I remember one time my brother telling me, ``I may be deaf, but I am not dumb.'' While at school, Frank was told he could be one of three things: a cobbler, a printers assistant, or a baker. When he said he didn't want to be any one of those things. They said, OK, you are a baker. So after he got out of school, he became a baker. But that is not what he wanted to do. So he went on to do other things, obviously. Everyday tasks were always hard. I remember, as a young boy, going with my older brother Frank to a store and how the sales person, when she found out that he was deaf, looked through him like he was invisible and turned to me to ask me what he wanted; or how when he wanted to get a driver's license, he was told that ``deaf people don't drive.'' So his life was not easy because the deck was stacked against him. He truly held the short end of the stick. I remember when my brother finally changed jobs. He got out of baking and got a job at a plant in Des Moines. He had a good job at Delavan's. Mr. Delavan decided he wanted to hire people with disabilities, and so my brother went to work there. He had a great job. He became a drill press operator making jet nozzles for jet engines. He was very proud of his work. Later on, I was in the Navy, in the military. I remember when I came home on leave for Christmas, and I was unmarried at the time. I came home to spend it with my brother Frank, who was also unmarried, and the company he worked for had a Christmas dinner. So I went with my brother to it, not knowing that anything special was going to happen. It turned out that they were honoring Frank that night, because in 10 years of working there he had not missed one day of work and hadn't been late once. Mr. President, that is during Iowa winters. So, again, that is an indication of just how hard-working and dedicated people with disabilities are when they do get a job. He worked at that plant for 23 years, and in 23 years he missed 3 days of work. And that was because of an unusual blizzard. Another little funny aside. In ADA, we mandated a nationwide relay system for the deaf, so that a deaf person could call a hearing person, and a hearing person could call a deaf person without having to use the TTY. One of the first calls made on the nationwide relay system was from the White House in 1993, when President Clinton put in a call to my brother Frank. We had it all set up. President Clinton called the number, and the line was busy. All the national press was there and everything. He waited a few seconds and the line was busy again. It was busy three or four times. Finally, I called my neighbor in Cumming, Iowa, and I said, ``Go over and find out what is going on.'' My brother was so excited that he had been on the phone talking to his friends. He forgot that the President was going to call him. President Clinton related that story at the FDR memorial this morning in celebration of the Americans With Disabilities Act and reminded me again of what the ADA was all about. As President Clinton so eloquently said this morning, it is about ensuring that every American can just do ordinary things, such as use the phone, go shopping, use public transportation. It is also about ensuring that every American has access to resources as fundamental as health insurance, a job, an education--things that we take for granted. The ADA is about designing our policies and physical environment so that we as a Nation can benefit from the talent of every citizen. It is about acknowledging that it costs much more to squander the potential of millions of people than to make the modest accommodations that let all Americans contribute fully. It is about tearing down the false dichotomy of abled and disabled, and realizing that each of us has a unique set of abilities. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, in anticipation of this tenth anniversary celebration of ADA, I announced ``A Day in the Life of the ADA Campaign.'' I asked people from across America to send stories about how their lives are different because of ADA. I wanted to find out just what the ADA meant to other people in ordinary life. Based on these stories, I have learned that the ADA is truly changing the face of America. A woman from Vinton, Iowa who uses a wheelchair wrote to tell me that because of the ADA, she now can travel around the country. She said: You can't understand until you've been there, searching for a hotel room, a restroom to stop in, a room to accommodate you, your spouse and your wheelchair. Oh, the joy of now knowing there are rest areas where we can stop, enter in without great difficulty, and then travel on to a waiting accessible motel room! What a good feeling to call ahead, make reservations and know that when we arrive there we'd find a clean room, ready to accommodate my needs. A man from St. Paul, Minnesota who is visually-impaired wrote to say that because of accommodations required by the ADA, he can use city buses with dignity, hear the audible traffic signals, and work. He said that the ADA also enables him to enjoy cultural activities, because he can listen to narrations of plays through earphones and basketball games through special radio receivers. In his words: [The ADA] has made my life 1000 times better than my father's who was also totally blind. And, a woman from Corpus Christi, Texas, whose daughter is hearing impaired told me that her daughter is able to join her schoolmates in classes and activities because of relay services and interpreters. The mother also told me that because of the ADA-required relay services, her daughter was able to speak with her father for the first time. When my daughter was just 4 years old, she got to call her real father for the first time. I wish you could have seen the sparkle in her eyes and the tears in mine as she `talked' with her daddy. It took forever (she couldn't type) but the relay service was friendly and patient. I believe that Relay has played a part in keeping their relationship strong. Every little girl needs her daddy. Mr. President, I have a whole stack of these stories. I will not ask permission for all, but I ask unanimous consent to have some of the more poignant stories that I received from around the country be printed in the Record. They are very short.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I extend my appreciation to my summer 2000 class of interns: Anna Gullickson, Kayla John, Sara Low, Charles Wishman, Tom Mann, Alyssa Rotschafer, MayRose Wegmann, Eric Bridges, Monica Parekh, Michelle Levar, Joe Plambeck, Ben Rogers, Robert Barron, Morgan Whitlatch, Veronica Hernandez, Cary Cascino, Daniel Myers, Linda Rosenbury, Ryan Howell, Jay Smith, SreyRam Kuy, and Jim Dunn. Each of them has been of tremendous assistance to me and to the people of Iowa over the past several months, and their efforts have not gone unnoticed. Since I was first elected into the Senate in 1984, my office has offered internships to young Iowans and other interested students. Through their work in the Senate, our interns have not only seen the legislative process, but also personally contributed to our nation's democracy. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Anna, Kayla, Sara, Charles, Tom, Alyssa, MayRose, Eric, Monica, Michelle, Joe, Ben, Robert, Morgan, Veronica, Cary, Daniel, Linda, Ryan, Jay, SreyRam, and Jim for their hard work this summer. It has been a delight to watch them take on their assignments with enthusiasm and hard work. I am very proud to have worked with each of them. I hope they take from their summer a sense of pride in what they've been able to accomplish and an increased interest in public service and our democratic system and process.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the managers of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill for their cooperation in including the amendment for emergency methamphetamine lab cleanup funds that Senator Hutchinson and I had offered as part of the bill's FY 2000 supplemental package. This amendment, also cosponsored by Senator Bingaman, Senator Brownback, Senator Nickles and Senator Thomas--provides $5 million in emergency lab cleanup funds for state and local law enforcement. A similar provision I had offered was included in the emergency package from June but it was dropped before it was attached to the Military Construction Appropriations conference, which gained final passage with a voice vote. There was strong support for this provision from both Democrats and Republicans. And it was included in both the House and Senate supplemental packages. So, it didn't make sense why it was suddenly dropped--especially when we're talking about dangerous chemical sites that are left exposed in our local communities. Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas and I last week sent a letter to the Appropriations leadership that was signed by 30 Senators, calling for this emergency funding. Our states desperately need this money or they will be forced to take money out of their own tight law enforcement budgets to cover the high cost of meth lab cleanup. Over the years, Iowa and many states in the Midwest, West and Southwest have been working hard to reduce the supply and demand of the methamphetamine epidemic. But meth has brought another unique problem to our states-- highly toxic labs that are often abandoned and exposed to our communities. The Drug Enforcement Agency has provided in recent years critical financial assistance to help clean up these dangerous sites, which can cost thousands of dollars each. Unfortunately and to everyone's surprise, the DEA in March ran out of funds to provide methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance to state and local law enforcement. That's because last year, this funding was cut in half while the number of meth labs found and confiscated has been growing. Last month, the Administration shifted $5 million in funds from other Department of Justice Accounts to pay for emergency meth lab cleanup. And I believe that will help reimburse these states for the costs they have incurred since the DEA ran out of money. My state of Iowa has already paid some $400,000 out of its own pocket in cleanup costs since March. But, this is not enough to get our states through the rest of the fiscal year. This $5 million provision will ensure that there will be enough money to pay for costly meth lab clean-up without forcing states to take money out of their other tight law enforcement budgets to cover these unexpected costs. If we can find the money to fight drugs in Colombia, we should be able to find the money to fight drugs in our own backyard. We cannot risk exposing these dangerous meth labs to our communities. Again, I appreciate the managers of this bill, Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl for their cooperation on this important provision and I look forward to working with them to making sure it is maintained in conference. emergency sugarcane relief

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I think we may have an agreement. If I could ask the Senator from Mississippi, is it the Senator's intention to leave the existing standards in effect during the period of time that the committee would make recommendations? My problem is ``promulgated.'' I had two issues with the Senator's language. One, my problem with ``adulterated'', has been taken care of; the other, what does ``promulgated,'' mean remains. If USDA promulgates new standards and in the meantime can't enforce the existing standards, we are going to have a 2- or 3-year period of time where we have no enforceable pathogen reduction standards. I ask the Senator, Is it your intention that during this period of time we would leave the existing standards in effect?

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you. Mr. President, let's go back to where we were a few hours ago when I first offered an amendment this morning. That amendment would state clearly that the Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of Agriculture--had the authority to set standards for pathogen reduction in meat and poultry inspection. Again, the amendment was carefully drafted not to set the standard. That should not be our business. The reason for the amendment was precipitated by a court case in Texas in May in which a Federal district court judge found that the Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of Agriculture--lacked the statutory authority to set and enforce pathogen reductions in meat and poultry inspection. When the Department established its new inspection rules in 1996, the USDA adopted a new food safety system based on hazard analysis, critical control points, and pathogen reduction standards, otherwise known now as HACCP. The system was designed to protect human health by reducing the levels of bacteria contamination in meat and poultry products. It has been in existence now for 4 years. What then happened was we had this plant in Texas, Supreme Beef. Three times they were warned by the inspectors that they were not meeting the salmonella reduction standards. Three times they failed. It is not that they weren't warned adequately; they were. On the third time when they failed it, the USDA did the only thing they could do under the authority they have, and that was to withdraw inspection from the plant, and, in effect, by withdrawing inspection from the plant, the plant had to shut down. The plant hired attorneys and took the case to district court and got an injunction. They got an injunction against the USDA so that they could keep operating, and they did. Then the judge decided, after a hearing, that the USDA lacked the legislative and statutory authority to both implement the rule and to enforce it. That is why we are here today with this amendment. We have worked long and hard on this. This is not something new. During the 1980s and 1990s, both the House and the Senate Agriculture Committees had numerous hearings. The Department of Agriculture, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, had numerous field hearings and rulemaking procedures. They eventually came up with this new program that blended the old inspection program with new flexibility for industry and new standards for pathogen reduction. Why was this necessary? Because we have bigger plants now, faster assembly lines, meat and poultry go through the system faster; and we also found increases, according to the Centers for Disease Control, in a number of foodborne illnesses that we had not seen before in our country. So we wanted to have a system whereby we could assure consumers of the highest level of confidence that once that meat left the slaughterhouse, once it left the processor, it would be as safe as possible. Here again are CDC's statistics on foodborne illness. I had this chart this morning. It indicates that there are 76 million illnesses every year because of foodborne pathogens, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Now, since we established the rule in 1996, salmonella rates in ground beef have dropped 43 percent for small plants and 23 percent for large plants. Since these performance standards were issued in 1996, we have had this big drop in salmonella in ground beef. The standard is working. But now a district court has said USDA lacks the statutory authority to enforce that standard. That was why I offered my amendment this morning. Not to set a standard but only to say USDA has the statutory authority to enforce a standard once it has been set. Adoption of my amendment doesn't mean that a packing plant or a processing plant couldn't still go to court and say: Your rule is arbitrary or it is onerous or it is inapplicable. But we never got to that in the Supreme Beef case. The Court just said they lacked the authority to set the rule. So they have thrown overboard years and years of work by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture under both Republicans and Democrats, and Republican and Democratic Secretaries of Agriculture to make progress in improving food safety. This morning, I tried to give statutory authority to the Secretary of Agriculture because without authority to enforce food safety standards, consumers are left exposed in this country. All we are trying to do is give them that authority. There was a motion to table the amendment made by the Senator from Mississippi. The motion to table lost on a tie vote. The Senator from Mississippi then put a second-degree amendment on my amendment. We were taking a look at it trying to figure out exactly what it did. It only changes a few words in my amendment. My amendment says at the end, standards ``established by the Secretary''--not our standard but standards set by the Secretary. The amendment by the Senator from Mississippi strikes that ``established by the Secretary'' and says ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' The key part of his amendment is ``and that are shown to be adulterated.'' What do those words mean? First of all, when they say ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods,'' the committee was were there when they first came up with the standards. They had input on the standards when they were established in 1996. There may be debate about the extent of consultation, but they were consulted. But the key words of the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi are these: ``that are shown to be adulterated.'' What does that mean? If the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi is adopted, it will mean that the Department of Agriculture will have to go all the way back and again go through rulemaking to develop new performance standards. We, under the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, are codifying a standard. The Senator from Mississippi, this morning, was saying the amendment that I offered was codifying the standard. I challenged him to show where that was so. It is not so. We do not codify a standard. Yet the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi codifies a standard. What is that standard shown to be? Adulteration; that is the standard. What does that mean? It means that USDA now can't just go into a plant and test for pathogen reduction and for salmonella and say they are not meeting the standard on salmonella--that they are failing to reduce pathogens. They now have to show that the meat is adulterated. That is what we have been doing for 70 years. A USDA inspector in a plant has had that authority for all of my lifetime, and for all of the lifetime of the Presiding Officer. They have the authority to go into a plant and withdraw inspection on the basis of adulteration. That is the old standard. The Senator from Mississippi would turn the clock back to where we were before 1996. No longer will we be able to say to parents: Your kids can have school lunches and not worry about pathogens because we have a pathogen reduction standard that is being enforced. No, we will have a gaping hole there because USDA will now have to show that the food is adulterated. It will have to show that the plant is unsanitary. That is what we tried to get beyond in 1996. The key part of the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi is that it codifies the adulteration standard as the essential element of pathogen reduction standards. Yet the Senator from Mississippi went after this Senator, just this morning, claiming that I was trying to codify a standard, which I wasn't. The judge in the Supreme Beef case said that for the USDA to take action, it had to show adulteration. That was the key part of the case. The judge said under the statutory law that exists, the only way the USDA can shut down an inspection line is if they show that it is adulterated--not that they didn't meet a salmonella reduction standard, not that they had pathogens in their food. They have to show that it is adulterated, that there are unsanitary conditions in the plant. Based on that holding, the judge said the USDA lacked the authority to enforce the existing salmonella standards. This amendment takes the holding in the Supreme Beef case, and makes it the law of the land. It makes the standard ``adulteration''. This amendment would make it the law of the land--not just in Texas but all over the country. Why would we want to do that? If we have to go back to ``promulgate with the advice,'' we will be another 2, 3, or 4 years waiting for pathogen reduction standards. What do we tell our consumers in the meantime? There is no standard. We go right back to where we were before. What do we tell the 325,000 Americans hospitalized every year because of foodborne illnesses? What do we tell the parents of kids eating school lunches? This amendment by the Senator from Mississippi would throw all of our meat inspection into a huge morass. It would basically say we are back now where we were 30 years--poke and sniff and have to prove that it is adulterated, or have to prove it is unsanitary. What does that mean? Salmonella can enter meat, for example, anywhere. It can enter it in the livestock yards, slaughterhouses, transportation, processing facilities. The point is not to lay blame on anyone. It is not to have the processor say: Our plant is clean, it is sanitary, and if there is salmonella there, we are not to blame, go blame somebody else. I don't care who is to blame. I want to stop it. We want to stop it. We want to make sure that there is a system in place so that if there are pathogens in meat and poultry, we find out where they are coming from and stop them. That is what HACCP is all about. But under the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, USDA could go right back to Supreme Beef, and they could say: Guess what. You are not meeting the salmonella pathogen reduction standard we set, you have failed too many tests. Supreme Beef could say: We don't care what you think because you don't have the authority to do anything about it. Is that the kind of message we want to send to our consumers? I don't have any letters in my office, but someone told me there are some papers circulating that the American Meat Institute is opposed to my amendment and supporting the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi. I have worked many years for the American Meat Institute. I have a high regard for them. I have a lot of livestock production in my home State. I have slaughtering facilities and processing facilities in my home State. If it is true the American Meat Institute is taking the position that the USDA can only have a pathogen reduction standard based on adulteration, they are doing a disservice to my livestock providers, they are doing a disservice to my packers, and they are doing a disservice to my processors. Why? Because the word will be out on the street, and it will be in every consumer report. It will be in every newsletter that goes out that you can't trust the meat and poultry products that are coming from our processors and our packers because we no longer have a pathogen reduction standard. Let me be very clear. If the Cochran amendment is adopted, new rulemaking will be mandatory. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to set the rules because they will have to have hearings and public comment. They went through all that less than 6 years ago. The Cochran amendment means they have to go through it again. What happens during the next 2 to 3 years while the rulemaking is in effect? There will be no standards in effect, no pathogen reduction standards in effect. I hope Senators who are here, who are listening in their offices, and staffs who are listening, understand this. The Cochran amendment will necessitate new rulemaking. It will take a long time, and during that period of time, there will be no pathogen reduction standards enforceable by the USDA. If the Senator wanted to amend his amendment and just say that would be issued ``with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, period,'' that would be acceptable.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the regular order right now?

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. There is no time limit?

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Before I start and the clock starts ticking on me, where are we and what time are we operating under right now?