Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. When you look at this table, you can see why it is such a poison pill. I am greatly troubled by the vote coming up. I have been on this committee and the subcommittee now since 1985. I have been privileged to chair it and then to be the ranking member with Senator Specter as chairman. To my best recollection I have never voted against a Labor-HHS appropriations bill--not once --when Republicans were in charge and then when Democrats were in charge because we have always worked out a reasonable compromise. Well, this will mark the first time that I will have to vote against it. I don't do so with glee. I don't do so as some kind of a pound on the table, saying this is the worst thing in the world. With that poison pill in there, we just can't eat it. I don't think a lot of people can. This is cutting Social Security, veterans' health care, Meals on Wheels, community health centers, afterschool programs, and education. Well, we all want to protect Social Security. Let's do it the right way. I believe we are going to have to sit down with the White House. I want to make sure Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and I are there at the table talking about this because I believe there is a way out of this. We have a scoring from the CBO that if we have a look-back penalty on tobacco companies for their failure to reduce teen smoking, we can raise the necessary budget authority and outlays needed to meet what we have in our Labor-HHS bill without this mindless 1-percent across-the- board cut, without dipping into Social Security. I believe that is the way to go. I notice that Congressman Porter, the chairman of the House subcommittee, was quoted just this morning as saying he favors making room for needed spending on discretionary programs by some type of a cigarette tax. He said that with ``the revenue generated by such a proposal we could get rid of all of the accounting gimmicks such as the delayed obligations at NIH.'' I want to say something else about that. There is no one who has been a stronger supporter of NIH than Senator Specter has been through all of this. Again, we had a good bill. We had some delayed obligations at NIH. But we had an amount that they could live with. Now, we are up to an amount of about $7 billion, if I am not mistaken, in delayed obligations at NIH. I believe that is going to cause them some distinct hardships. We have to get those delayed obligations back down to the area we had when we had the bill on the Senate floor. I compliment Senator Specter for doing a great job. He is a wonderful friend of mine, and he has done a great job of leadership on this bill. It is too bad that other authorities someplace decided to put in a poison pill. But, hopefully, after this is over, we can work together, we can get it out, and we can have a bill that is close to the one that we passed on the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to follow up with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania. He is absolutely right; we have had a great working relationship for a long time. He has been open with me, as has his staff. We have had a great working relationship, and I think that proved itself in the bill we brought to the Senate floor. We had a great bill on the Senate floor. We had a strong, bipartisan vote, 75- 23. It doesn't get much more bipartisan than that around here. It was about half and half, Democrats and Republicans, voting for it. So it was a good bill, a strong bill. Now, my friend from Pennsylvania, for whom I have the highest respect and affinity, is right; there are a lot of good things in this bill. It reminds me of sitting down at a dinner and you have a smorgasbord of prime rib, steaks, lamb chops, pasta, and all this wonderful meal spread out, and you can sample each one, but you have to take a poison pill with it. Is that really worth eating? That is the problem with this bill. There are good things in it; I admit that to my friend from Pennsylvania. But this 1-percent across-the-board mindless cut that was added later on--I know not with the support of either one of us on the Senate side--is a poison pill. Then they tried to say this is 1 percent and you can take it from waste, fraud, and abuse, or anything like that. But when you looked at the fine print, it was 1 percent from every program, project, and activity; every line item had to be cut by 1 percent. That means in a lot of health programs, labor programs, and in some education programs, with that 1-percent cut, we are actually below what we spent last year--not a reduction in the increase. We are actually below what we were last year. I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Labor-HHS bill which has been attached to the D.C. appropriations bill. I will not have any comments on the D.C. appropriations bill; I leave that to my friend and colleague, my leader, Senator Durbin from Illinois. Privilege of the Floor I ask unanimous consent Jane Daye, Mark Laisch, and Dr. Jack Chow, detailees to the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, be permitted on the floor during consideration of the D.C. and Labor-HHS-Education conference report.

Mr. HARKIN. Today we are bringing up--and I guess the vote will be held on Tuesday--the conference report that accompanies the D.C. appropriations bill. This report, as we now know, also includes the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill negotiated by the House and Senate appropriators. I regret very much that the conference agreement includes a poison pill inserted by the House Republican leadership, an irresponsible and indiscriminate across-the-board cut against all discretionary programs, projects, and activities. Later I will discuss that at length. First, I commend the work of my colleague and chairman on the appropriations bill, Senator Specter. He and I have had a great working relationship through the years, a true partnership every year on this bill, first when I was Chair and he was ranking member and now he is Chair and I am ranking. Senator Specter has a deep commitment to the vitally important health, education, labor, research, and other initiatives in this bill. Senator Specter and his staff have always treated our side fairly. I want him and them to know how much I appreciate that. I not only appreciate it; I understand how important it is in terms of completing our Nation's business. A few weeks ago, the Senate passed the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill by an overwhelming vote of 73-25; 41 Democrats and 32 Republicans voted for it. This is an exceedingly strong vote. It got this strong vote because Senator Specter and I worked together and we worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that truly reflected our Senate priorities. It was a good bill. It provides a major increase for medical research. It provides $500 million more than the President requested for education. It maintained our commitment to worker safety provisions. It did have one major flaw. It did not fund the President's class size initiative in an acceptable manner. Nonetheless, I argued strongly for its passage. At the time, I told Members on my side of the aisle I would work to resolve the class size issue in conference. We had a good Senate bill. We had a strong Senate vote, with 73 votes on the Senate side. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, was not able even to produce a bill. The Appropriations Committee on the House side reported out a bill. It cut education, cut job training, had a whole lot of bad labor riders dealing with workers' safety protection. But the full House never even took it up. Several weeks ago, we began something I had never ever engaged in around here; we began a nonconference conference. We could not have had a conference because the House never passed a bill, but we met with the House appropriators. Congressman John Porter, the chairman of the Labor-HHS subcommittee on the House side--Senator Specter and I, and our staffs, met with him in an effort to move the process forward. When our committee was working on it, we made good progress. We worked together to produce an agreement that was very close to the Senate bill. Again, I compliment and commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle in the House, Congressman Porter, for working together in an open and constructive manner to produce a bill I believe could have garnered votes and could have passed. If we could have ended the conference at that point, I would be here today speaking in favor of the Labor-HHS and Education bill. However that is not the case. With regard to the class size reduction issue, I raised the point in our negotiations with the House that 38 Senators encouraged the President to veto the conference report if it did not include this initiative. However, I was not able to convince the negotiators on this point. I am, however, convinced this issue will be addressed in any final bill. But putting this class size initiative aside, we had put together, I thought, really a pretty good agreement. We included a large increase for biomedical research, $100 million for community health centers, and a big increase for Head Start. None of what I term ``the offensive House riders'' the House had put on for labor, health, and safety--none of those were included. Largely, it reflected most of the priorities of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, both Republican and Democratic. As I said, if we could have ended it there, we probably would have had a pretty good bill. But then Republican House leadership got involved. First, they insisted key programs be cut. They insisted afterschool programs be reduced by $100 million. They insisted the small increase we had for critical family planning services be eliminated. They insisted on cutting Goals 2000. Why? I don't know, unless it was because it was a Presidential priority. Next, they insisted on further delayed obligations. We had some delayed obligations, but I think they were delayed obligations with which we could have lived, with which the Departments and Agencies could have lived. But the delayed obligations the House leadership put in, I think, will cause some real problems at the National Institutes of Health. I have long said not only do we have to increase the money going to the NIH, that we had to double their budget over 5 years--of which I have been very supportive--but that we need continuity, so grants could go out to researchers that are not interrupted, so when researchers start on a program and a research project they can continue. With the delayed obligations and the extent to which we have them in this bill, it appears that NIH will not be able to fund these research programs on a longer term basis. It is just going to be from 1 year to the next. As any person familiar with research can tell you, that is not the best way to conduct research. I think the delayed obligations are going to cut back on the good that we did in terms of increasing the funding for NIH. Next, the House leaders also put in a $121 million reduction in salaries and expenses. That was over and above the reductions we had already made on the Senate side. We cut pretty deeply in the salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the Departments under our jurisdiction, but the House leadership cut another $121 million. I believe that is unacceptable. After that, the House leadership added--over, I might say, the opposition of most of the appropriators--the poison pill across-the- board cut. The House Republican leaders repeatedly said this cut will give each Department the ability to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. I take a back seat to no one in this body or the other body or on either side of the aisle when it comes to fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs, but that is not what this provision says, nor would it accomplish that. This is not a 1-percent cut that can be taken from any broad array of programs. Every program, project, and activity in this bill has to be cut by 1 percent. So when you see the House Republican leaders on television saying: 1 percent, that's nothing, we can take that out of fraud, waste, and abuse--sorry. That is not the way the provision is written. The provision is written it is 1 percent. It is not 1 percent of the increase; it is 1 percent of the total that goes to each line item in this bill, every single line item has to be cut. You might say that is not, that 1 percent--that doesn't sound like a lot. When you put it in the Social Security system and the offices that administer Social Security, it cuts it big time. It cuts millions of dollars out of veterans' health care. It cuts Meals on Wheels, community health centers, afterschool programs; it cuts education. Again, I point out it does not just cut the increases; it cuts many important programs actually below last year's level. I will read from a list here of some programs that actually will have less than last year because of this across-the-board cut. Adult job training--we saw the other day our economy is booming at unprecedented rates. But the economy is changing. For example, we had an announcement the other day in Iowa a major packing plant was closing its doors 5 days before Christmas. I will not go into that right now, but talk about heartless; 5 days before Christmas, Iowa Beef Processors is closing its doors, and over 400 people are being thrown out of work. We need to retrain those people. We need to retrain them for the new kind of economy we have. The bill before us cuts adult job training to less than what we had last year. It is the wrong way to go. Youth opportunity grants, community service jobs for senior citizens are cut below last year's level. Family planning, AIDS prevention, substance abuse block grants, child welfare and child abuse programs are all cut to less than what we had last year. This is not a cut in the increase, this is a cut below what we had last year. Teacher training: I met with some educators in my office yesterday who were here from Irving School in Dubuque. They were getting an award as one of the blue-ribbon schools of America, a great award. I mentioned the teacher training program was being cut to less than last year. They said: How could this possibly be? This is the program, the Eisenhower math and science program, that keeps our teachers up to par with what is happening so they can better teach their students. You can vote for this bill if you want, Mr. President, but if you do, you are voting to cut teacher training programs for Goals 2000, the literacy programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of cuts that I have just enunciated be printed in the Record in tabular form.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the House Republican leadership and others have argued this across-the-board cut was needed to protect Social Security. We all agree we want to protect the Social Security surplus. But the Congressional Budget Office says even with the across-the-board cut, they are going to have to tap Social Security by $17 billion. So leaving that aside, an across-the-board cut is not the answer. Let's protect Social Security. Let's do it in the right way. Let's make the tough decisions, not hide behind an across-the-board cut. Frankly, there are other offsets we could use. I say we should impose a penalty on tobacco companies that fail to meet targets for reducing youth smoking. In fact, I have in my hand a specific proposal to do just that, to set a goal of reducing teen smoking by 15 percent. That is a modest goal. If they fail to meet that modest goal, they would have to pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this proposal would raise almost $6 billion in fiscal year 2000. That is $2.8 billion more than is saved by this across-the-board cut. It would have the added benefit of protecting our kids from the deadly addiction of tobacco. I want to be very clear--my esteemed friend from Illinois is sitting here--this is not a new idea. We have voted on this before. In fact, this was part of a proposal the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Ohio proposed and which actually passed this body. So why don't we do this rather than having an across-the-board cut in teacher training, the substance abuse block grant, health programs, AIDS prevention programs. Let's do something we already said we ought to do--cut teen smoking. And if the tobacco companies cannot meet it, they pay a penalty. Unfortunately, the conference report we have before us does not take this path. With all the respect, admiration, and friendship I have for Senator Specter--and he has worked doggedly on this bill; he has worked hard to protect education and health and research programs; he and his staff have worked openly with me and my staff--reluctantly I will have to vote against this conference agreement. The poison pill across-the-board cut did it. I do so with reluctance because I believe we crafted a good bill in the Senate, and it would have avoided all kinds of political maneuvering if we had the bill we passed in the Senate. If we followed that bipartisan path Senator Specter and I worked on and set up in the Senate that was reflected in a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, we would have had a much different result. It is very clear to everyone, if this conference agreement is passed by the Senate, it will be vetoed by the President, and that veto will not be overridden. When that happens, I plan to work very hard with my chairman, Senator Specter, and will be sitting at that table to help craft a bill with our House colleagues and, of course, with the White House, that reflects congressional priorities but does not make these inordinate, mindless across-the-board cuts and that has offsets that truly do reduce teen smoking and help us meet our goals of not invading the Social Security trust funds.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to reflect on the passing of one of the true giants in the Senate, someone with whom I was privileged to work for the last 15 years I have been in the Senate--Senator John Chafee, a good man with a great heart and a great soul, a statesman in every sense of the word, a public servant unequaled, a man who dedicated his entire professional life to the service of his country. He was a good friend of people on both sides of this aisle. He was respected by all who knew him and served with him, and he returned that respect in kind. During all the efforts with which I had worked with him through the years, he always returned respect. If you did not agree with him, he respected your position. I never once heard John Chafee belittle a Member of this body or the other body because of a position that was taken by that Senator or Congressman. He respected people's views. He respected the fact you come from a different viewpoint. He was a great bridge builder. He would reach out to people, always looking for a way to craft a consensus, always having in mind ``I am not right all the time and you are not right all the time, but if we work together, we can build a consensus and find a middle way.'' He set aside partisanship. He put his energies into working for the greater good. He won high praise from a wide spectrum of admirers, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You cannot get much broader than that. He is a true American hero. He never talked about it. He left college in 1942 and joined the Marine Corps and fought in one of the bloodiest battles of the U.S. Marine Corps in Guadalcanal. If that was not enough, he fought during the invasion of Okinawa. Those were two of the bloodiest battles of World War II. He left military service, but came back to fight, once again, in Korea in 1951. I do not mean sitting behind a desk either; I mean as a soldier in the field. Between his tours of duty, he had already earned his bachelor's degree at Yale and his law degree at Harvard. A career of distinguished service followed: Rhode Island House of Representatives, Governor of the State, Secretary of the Navy, and United States Senator. He was the first Republican Senator elected in Rhode Island in 46 years. Having known him well, I know, no matter where his public service took him, his heart was always in Rhode Island. In talking with him when he announced he was retiring, he said he looked forward to retiring to his home State of Rhode Island. He wore many titles in his lifetime--lieutenant, captain, Governor, Secretary, Senator, but he was proudest of being a husband, a father, and a grandfather. He was devoted to his family: Virginia, 5 children, 12 grandchildren. I know their loss is tremendous, but I hope in the days, weeks, and months ahead they will take comfort in John Chafee's magnificent legacy. When the major achievements of the 20th century are recounted, many will bear his mark: the Clean Air Act, Superfund, Social Security improvements, fair housing, civil rights. He played a major role in every major piece of environmental legislation that has been passed in the last two decades. He fought for health care coverage for low-income families and expanded coverage for uninsured children. He fought hard for the Family and Medical Leave Act. John made it his mission to make sure no American fell between the cracks. America's women, children, and families are the beneficiaries. I had the privilege of working with John Chafee on a couple of major issues. I worked very closely with him for over a year tackling our Nation's leading public health problem: the use of tobacco. With Senator Graham from Florida, we introduced the first bipartisan bill. We called it the KIDS Act to protect our children from tobacco. Senator Chafee had the courage to take on the tobacco industry and provided great leadership on this issue. He did it because of his unwavering dedication to improve health, save lives, and protect our kids. While we did not succeed with our bill, we did succeed on another important effort, and that is combatting teen smoking. Senator Chafee and I offered an amendment to fully fund FDA's initiative to have store clerks check the IDs of children and young people before they sell cigarettes. And as you walk up to the counter in your 7-Eleven and other stores, right now you will see they have put in place an ID check. They check IDs before selling cigarettes. Senator Chafee led that initiative. Senate passage of this amendment was the first big defeat of big tobacco in the Senate in 10 years, since we passed the ban on smoking on airlines. That effort has had a big impact. Thousands and thousands of kids have been prevented from buying a deadly addictive product. As I said, that important victory would not have been possible without John Chafee and his skill at forming a bipartisan coalition and crafting a creative solution to this very pressing problem. I also had the privilege of working with John Chafee on disability issues. As the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which passed and was signed into law by President Bush in 1990, Senator Chafee and I formed a working relationship on this issue. He was a major champion for creating alternatives to institutions for people with disabilities, to get people out of institutions and into their homes and into their communities where they could be fully integrated into all aspects of American life. Senator Chafee's work to create the Medicaid home and community-based waivers opened the door for independent living for tens of thousands of people with disabilities across our country. I can tell you this has been a movement that has taken hold in our country. It has provided so much joy to families. It has provided opportunities for people with disabilities. I had a family in my office the other day from Iowa, the Piper family, Sylvia and Larry Piper, and their son Dan. I have known Dan for a long time, since he was in high school. Dan has Down's syndrome, but he was mainstreamed in school, after his parents had told him they probably would have to put him in institutions for the rest of his life. They got him in high school. He was the captain of the football team. He acted in school plays. And after he got out of high school, he went out and got a job. He has been working now for several years, and he lives in a community setting. He has his own apartment. He has his own job, pays taxes, buys his own TV set. He told me he just bought a VCR. Community-based living. His parents are proud of him. They are happy he is out there on his own. They know his future is going to be bright. He is not stuck in an institution someplace. Well, sitting in my office with my friends, the Pipers, and my long- time friend, Dan, I had to think of Senator Chafee and his leadership to create the community-based waivers that allow people with disabilities to live independently. He also worked in a true bipartisan manner to promote maternal and child health programs. John Chafee's commitment to fighting for what he believed in was matched by the dedication of his long-time and loyal staff. My heart goes out to all of them. I have worked with them for a long time. They are a great staff. John Chafee was a very humble, unassuming giant in the Senate. He had a broad, inclusive vision. He was a principled and thoughtful person. He was kind and generous. He asked and gave the best of himself in everything he did. He never sought recognition. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work. His spirit and his voice will be sorely missed. I am privileged to have called him my friend. In closing, at times such as this I always remember the question that was put to John Kennedy one time. A reporter once asked President Kennedy how he wanted to be remembered. President Kennedy gave it a momentary thought, and he said he believed the highest tribute that could be paid to anyone would be to be remembered as a good and decent human being. So if I could use that as the highest tribute that can be paid to anyone, we remember John Chafee as a good and decent human being. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. The Developmental Disabilities Act has been a cornerstone of federal registration for people with disabilities. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to introduce legislation that will reauthorize this important law. The entities funded under the Act--The Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Affiliated Programs, and the Protection and Advocacy agencies--have enabled us to move away from a service system dominated by large public institutions, and to establish services where families and individuals want them--in their own homes, communities, and neighborhoods. In fact, the Supreme Court cited the Developmental Disabilities Act in the recent Olmstead decision as one of several pieces of federal legislation that secure opportunities for people with disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living. This year's reauthorization is important for a number of reasons. First, we must continue our progress toward providing better community services for all people with disabilities. The Development Disabilities Act is instrumental in that work. Second, we must ensure that people with developmental disabilities are free from abuse and neglect in all aspects of the service delivery system. This bill will help protect people with disabilities from abuse and neglect no matter where they live--inside an institution or in the community. And, finally, we must do more to strengthen and support families as they provide care and support to family members with a disability. Family Support programs are one of the fastest growing services on the State level. State policy-makers are realizing that family caregivers are the true heroes of our long-term care system and they need help if they are going to keep their children at home. In this year's reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act, we have included a Family Support program to help states strengthen and coordinate their support systems for family caregivers. I commend the disability groups for all of their work to make this reauthorization possible. I thank my colleagues and their staff for their hard work to reauthorize this law into the next millennium. I applaud their commitment to people with developmental disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. The Developmental Disabilities Act has been a cornerstone of federal registration for people with disabilities. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to introduce legislation that will reauthorize this important law. The entities funded under the Act--The Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Affiliated Programs, and the Protection and Advocacy agencies--have enabled us to move away from a service system dominated by large public institutions, and to establish services where families and individuals want them--in their own homes, communities, and neighborhoods. In fact, the Supreme Court cited the Developmental Disabilities Act in the recent Olmstead decision as one of several pieces of federal legislation that secure opportunities for people with disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living. This year's reauthorization is important for a number of reasons. First, we must continue our progress toward providing better community services for all people with disabilities. The Development Disabilities Act is instrumental in that work. Second, we must ensure that people with developmental disabilities are free from abuse and neglect in all aspects of the service delivery system. This bill will help protect people with disabilities from abuse and neglect no matter where they live--inside an institution or in the community. And, finally, we must do more to strengthen and support families as they provide care and support to family members with a disability. Family Support programs are one of the fastest growing services on the State level. State policy-makers are realizing that family caregivers are the true heroes of our long-term care system and they need help if they are going to keep their children at home. In this year's reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act, we have included a Family Support program to help states strengthen and coordinate their support systems for family caregivers. I commend the disability groups for all of their work to make this reauthorization possible. I thank my colleagues and their staff for their hard work to reauthorize this law into the next millennium. I applaud their commitment to people with developmental disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our friend and colleague John Chafee was a good man, a first among equals. He was a statesman and a public servant. He dedicated his professional life to the service of his country. He was a good friend to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. John Chafee was respected by all who knew and served with him. And he returned that respect in kind. He was a bridge builder, always looking for a way to craft consensus. He set aside partisanship and put his energies into working for the greater good. And he won high praise from a wide spectrum of admirers, from the ACLU to the Chamber of Commerce! John had an early and lifelong sense of duty to his country. He left college in 1942 to join the Marine Corps. He fought in the U.S. invasion of Guadalcanal and later on Okinawa. He returned to active military duty in 1951 in Korea. Between his tours of duty, John earned his bachelor's degree at Yale and his law degree at Harvard. He built a career of distinguished service to his state and his nation. He served in the Rhode Island House of Representatives (1957- 63), as Governor of Rhode Island (1963-69), as Secretary of the Navy (1969-72). And in 1977, John Chafee came to the United States Senate, the first Republican Senator elected in his state in 46 years. No matter where public service took him, his heart was always in Rhode Island. And it was to Rhode Island that he planned to retire next year. John Chafee wore many titles in his lifetime, and he wore them all with distinction: Captain, Governor, Secretary, Senator. But I believe that John was proudest of being a husband, father, and grandfather. He was devoted to his family--to Virginia, their five children, and twelve grandchildren. Their loss is tremendous, and I hope in the days and weeks ahead they take some small comfort in John's magnificent legacy. When the major achievements of the 20th Century are recounted, many of them will bear the mark of John Chafee: the Clean Air Act, the Superfund, Social Security, fair housing, civil rights. He played a major role in every major piece of environmental legislation that has passed during the past two decades. He fought for health care coverage for low income families and expanded coverage for uninsured children. He fought for the Family and Medical Leave Act. John made it his mission to ensure that no American fell between the cracks. And America's women, children, and families are the beneficiaries. John Chafee and I worked together long and hard to protect kids from tobacco addiction. In 1998, we introduced the first comprehensive bipartisan tobacco prevention bill--the Kids Deserve Freedom from Tobacco Act. Our bill--also known as the KIDS Act--was designed to cut tobacco use by kids in half over a three-year period. John took some risks in joining this bipartisan effort, but he did it because he was a passionate advocate for children. I also had the privilege of working with John on disability issues. He was a major champion for creating alternatives to institutions for people with disabilities. Senator Chafee's work to create the Medicaid home and community-based waivers opened the doors to independent living for tens of thousands of people with disabilities. His efforts in this area alone are too numerous to recount. In addition, he worked in true bipartisan manner to promote maternal and child health programs and to protect thousands of children with disabilities from losing SSI. John Chafee's commitment to fighting for what he believed in was matched by the dedication of his longtime, loyal staff. Our hearts go out to all of them. Mr. President, John Chafee was a humble giant. He had a broad, inclusive vision. He was principled and thoughtful. He asked and gave the best of himself in everything he did. He didn't seek recognition. He just rolled up his sleeves and got to work. His spirit and his voice will be sorely missed. I am privileged to call him my friend.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, once again, the Senator from Pennsylvania said that my amendment is about changing the subject. He also made the point that this bill has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Most respectfully, I disagree with my friend from Pennsylvania. Nothing could be further from the truth. This law does not provide for any protection of a woman's health. Of course, they keep using the term ``partial-birth abortion.'' That is nowhere found in the medical lexicon. That is not a medical term. That is a political pejorative term used to excite and inflame passions. That is all it is. Let's be honest about that. I think if the other side was sincere in wanting to end late-term abortions, they could have supported Senator Durbin's amendment yesterday, which would have accomplished that. Finally, in States where they have passed legislation such as the Santorum bill--the underlying bill here--doctors in those States stopped performing all abortions because it was so unclear as to the timeframe. There is no timeframe in this at all. That is why the circuit courts, in all these instances, have struck these laws down as being unconstitutional. A recent case in our circuit upheld a case in Iowa on this law. So, really, what this vote is about is whether or not the Senate wants to turn back the clock and move back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days of back-alley abortions, the days when women committed suicide when they were faced with a desperate choice, the days of women dying or being permanently disfigured from illegal abortions, when women became sterile and could not have children because they had illegally botched abortions. This vote about to occur is whether the Senate believes that in the most personal and heart-wrenching decisions the politicians should know what is best, and not the women, their families, and their doctors, and according to their own religious beliefs and faiths. That is what this vote is about. It is about whether or not we believe Roe v. Wade was a wise decision and whether or not ought to have their rights to decide their own reproductive health. It has everything to do with the underlying bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for her tremendous leadership on this issue that is so important to women of this country. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robb be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her strong support for women's rights and the constitutional right of women to make their own decisions in terms of reproductive health. I thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for her strong support, and my friend and colleague from Illinois who will be speaking shortly, Senator Durbin. It has been said by the proponent of the underlying bill that this amendment of mine has nothing to do with his underlying bill. I beg to differ and to disagree. This amendment has everything to do with the underlying amendment because, really, what my friend from Pennsylvania is seeking to do is to begin the long process--which I am sure he would like to have a shorter process--to overturn Roe v. Wade, to take away the constitutional right that women have in our country today to decide their own reproductive health and procedures. That is really what this is about: A chipping away--one thing here, another thing there. If anyone believes, by some fantasy dream, if the underlying bill of the Senator from Pennsylvania would ever become the law of the land, that this would be the end of it, that the Senator from Pennsylvania and those who believe and feel as he does would not feel the need to do anything else with regard to a woman's right to choose, is sadly mistaken. They will be back again with something else, and back again with something else, until Roe v. Wade is overturned. That is really what they are about. So as far as I know, this will be the first time that the Senate of the United States has ever been able to speak; that is, to vote on how we feel and how we believe Roe v. Wade ought to be interpreted as the law of the land. This is the first time, that I know of, that we have had the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not we believe that Roe v. Wade should stand and should not be overturned and that it is, indeed, a good decision. Again, I just read the ``Findings'' of my amendment. My amendment is very short. It just says: Congress finds that-- (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law; (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy; and (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade decision. (b) . . . It is the sense of the Congress that-- (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned. Very simple and very straightforward. It has everything to do with the underlying bill because what the underlying bill really seeks to do is overturn Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade leaves an exception in to protect the woman's life or health. The Court, in siding with Roe in the Texas case that was filed, struck down the Texas law. The Court recognized for the first time the constitutional right to privacy ``is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' The Court set some rules. It recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute, that a State has a valid interest in safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life. A State's interest in ``potential life'' is ``not compelling,'' the Court said, until viability, the point in pregnancy at which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. This is the important part: A State may, but is not required, to prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman's life or health. That is what Mr. Santorum's underlying bill does; it strikes out those very important words ``or health.'' As we have repeated stories of women who have had this procedure, who, if they had not had this procedure, could have been injured permanently for life, been made sterile for life, not being able to hope to even raise a family after that, that has a lot to do with a woman's health. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say something yesterday about we should not be guided by these anecdotes that people come and tell us. But what we do hear affects people's lives. These are not anecdotes. I told the story yesterday of my friend, Kim Coster, and her husband. She had to go through this procedure twice. She still has hopes of raising a family--a very wrenching, painful decision for her and her husband. Is that an anecdote? No. It is a true-life story of what happens to individuals because of what we do here. Let us always keep in mind that the votes we cast, the laws that we pass, affect real people in real-life situations. These are not anecdotes. These are not something to cloud and to fog our reasoning. I believe I paraphrased a little bit what the Senator from Pennsylvania said. I may not have said the words correctly, but that is sort of what he said. No, we should use real-life stories to guide and direct us as to what we should do within the constitutional framework and what we should do to ensure that we do not trample on constitutional rights, and especially, here, the constitutional rights of women to control their own reproductive health. So I would just say to my friend from Pennsylvania, this amendment, this sense-of-the-Congress resolution that is now pending, has everything to do with the underlying bill. It is the first time that we will be able to speak as to whether or not we believe Roe v. Wade should continue, should not be overturned, and was a wise decision. I am certain the Senator from Pennsylvania will vote against my amendment. That is his right. I know he does not believe in Roe v. Wade. I know he believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. There are others who believe that. But I hope the vast majority of the Senate will vote, with a loud voice, that Roe v. Wade was a wise decision. It secured an important constitutional right for women. It should not be overturned. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 60 minutes equally divided before a vote.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question. I didn't realize. I apologize.

Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry if someone referred to them as executioners. That, I think, is totally inappropriate and inflammatory and could lead to tragic consequences in our country. I don't know the doctors who helped Kim Koster. But from talking to her, they were sensitive. They are doctors who wanted Kim and her husband to know every facet of what was happening and wanted them to make their own decision. They are doctors who have a lot of compassion and professionalism and, under the legal framework, were able to help this couple get through a very bad time and enabled them to move on with their lives and to plan on another child. If that had not been there--if we had taken Roe v. Wade away or if we had adopted S. 1692--I don't know what would have happened to Kim Koster and her husband or whether they would be here today planning to try again to raise a family. I say to my colleague from California that I believe Kim Koster is an extremely brave individual. In fact, I would say to anyone who wants to talk to her about what happened to her, she is out in the reception room right now. She would be glad to tell them why it is important to not only adhere to Roe v. Wade but to defeat S. 1692 that would have taken away her reproductive rights and under very tragic circumstances.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from California because I believe this statement by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter is really aimed at us. They are aiming it at legislators who somehow sit in judgment-- legislators who would put themselves in the position of defining for women what their reproductive rights are. Here is the quote: At the heart of liberty-- At the heart of liberty-- is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the state. That is the quote. I believe it is directed at us. Mr. President, I don't know how long people want to talk on this. I know the day is getting late. I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 minutes equally divided before we have an up-or-down vote on this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California. I thank her for the question. I will elaborate on that in just a minute. Again, I say to the Senator from California, we do need to send a strong message that the freedom to choose is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. It is nonnegotiable. This ruling of Roe v. Wade has touched all of us in very different ways. As the Senator from California just pointed out, it is estimated that as many as 5,000 women died yearly from illegal abortions before Roe. In the 25 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's achievements have reached unprecedented levels. The Supreme Court recently observed: The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. I will also quote Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in the Casey case: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. I think that is what this is all about--whether we will use the heavy hand of the State to enforce certain individuals' concepts of when life begins, how life begins, when can a person have an abortion, when can a person not. People are divided on this issue. Some people are uncertain about it. I quarrel with myself all the time about it because it is as multifaceted as there are individual humans on the face of the Earth. I would not sit in judgment on any person who would choose to have an abortion, especially a woman who went through the terrifying, agonizing, soul-wrenching procedure of having a late-term abortion because her health and her life was in danger. That must be one of the most soul-wrenching experiences a person can go through. And you want me to sit in judgment on that? The Senator from Pennsylvania wants to be able to say: Here it is. You can't deviate from that. I am sorry; that is not our role; that is not the role of the Government or the State. That is why, again, I believe it is particularly important that we cut through the fog that surrounds this issue and get to the heart of it, which is Roe v. Wade. I used the word ``elegant.'' It means simplistic, simplicity. Elegant: Not convoluted, not hard to understand, not shrouded and complex, but elegant, straightforward, simple in its definition. That is Roe v. Wade. There are now those who want to come along and change it and make it complex, indecipherable, benefiting maybe one person one way, adding to the detriment of another person another way, so that we are right back where we were before Roe v. Wade. So I believe very strongly that we need to express ourselves on this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That is why I will be asking for a rollcall vote at the appropriate time because it is going to be important for us to send a message on how important it is to preserve a woman's fundamental right to choose under Roe v. Wade.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Right.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Illinois has stated it elegantly, very simply and straightforward. That is the essence of the amendment, and the Senator is correct. Voting on the amendment, which I offered, a vote in favor of my amendment would be a vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. A vote against it would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to take away a woman's right to choose. The amendment I have offered would be consistent with the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois.